Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto compiled with),— Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Chatham and District Light Railways Company Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill,

Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

LIGHT METAL LIMB.

Major COHEN: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions the price of the new Government light metal limb, both as supplied by Messrs. Vickers and also when completely fitted with bucket, etc.?

The MINISTER OF PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): It would not be expedient at this stage to publish details of the
contracts placed with the limbmakers in connection with the new light metal limb. I may, however, inform my hon. and gallant Friend that for the first issue of 500 the total cost per limb will not exceed £30. These limbs are, of course, provided free to the pensioner.

NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (PRIVATE T. THOMPSON).

Mr. CAIRNS: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the widow of Private Thomas Thompson, No. 1010, Northumberland Fusiliers, has got no pension for the death of her husband, who committed suicide after having lost his leg in the War; if so, will he grant some pension or payment if the doctor certifies that his state of mind was caused by the loss of his leg; and is he aware that the widow and children are only having parish allowance?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Further consideration is being given to this case in view of the medical evidence now furnished in connection with the widow's appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

APPLICATIONS FOR PENSIONS.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the public dissatisfaction at the long time taken to clear up and decide some applications for pensions; whether some of these remain as long as six months under official consideration; and whether, in view of the suffering that these methods often entail to the dependants, he will take steps to have these applications disposed of with greater dispatch?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made to deal expeditiously with all applications for pension. He will, however, recognise that, in cases where the application is made long after discharge, the collection and examination of evidence is a matter of some difficulty, involving a certain amount of inevitable delay. I may add that the machinery for dealing with these claims has been under investigation by the Departmental Committee, whose report I am expecting at an early date.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether in the
case of disabled single officers and men who are in receipt of war pensions, any additional allowance is made on marriage; and, if not, whether he will take the matter into consideration, having regard to the fact that in many cases the disablement is of a character which makes it urgently necessary that the men should have assistance in doing things for which the nature of their wounds seriously handicaps them?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Wife's allowance, as an addition to pension, is not granted unless the marriage took place before the man's disablement. To remove this restriction from the Warrant, together with the corresponding restrictions relating to children's allowances and widows' and children's pensions, would involve an exceedingly heavy expenditure, which (according to an estimate made by my predecessor) might amount to as much as £30,000,000 a year. With regard to the latter part of the question, I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that in cases of total disablement, a special allowance is granted if the constant attendance of another person is necessary.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how seriously this may handicap many of these men who were, unfortunately, wounded in the War, and were not married at the time? Taking into consideration that the allowance is made in regard to that disablement, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that something might be done for these men who are partially disabled?

Mr. MACPHERSON: As I stated in my reply, the expenditure, if it is carried out thoroughly, might amount to about £30,000,000 a year. I have also pointed out that where a man requires constant attention because of his wounds we give him constant attention. We endeavour to meet in a special way the cases of these disabled men.

Mr. C. WHITE: Would that apply to the wife of a man who has married under these circumstances, if he needs constant attention?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that is so. I will look into it; but I believe the wife does get some money for attendance when she marries one of these men.

TEMPORARY GRANTS.

Mr. SUGDEN: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will grant local war pensions committees discretionary prerogative to administer grants to disabled discharged soldiers whilst awaiting the decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal as to whether their disability is due to, or aggravated by, military service, and thus save some discharged soldiers the necessity of having to apply for parish relief?

Mr. MACPHERSON: In certain cases, under conditions which are defined in the Local War Pensions Committees' Handbook, recoverable advances may be made by the local committees to men whose appeals to the tribunal are awaiting decision. Having regard to the fact that claims to pension are only rejected by the Ministry after very careful consideration, I am unable to grant any extension of this concession.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the average time occupied by the tribunal before a decision is arrived at?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member must put that question to the Attorney-General, who answers questions dealing with the appeal tribunal.

SOLDIER'S DEATH, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 66.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the case of Private George Ravenhill, V.C., 2nd Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers, who has just died under distressing circumstances in Long Acre, Nechells, Birmingham; whether he is aware that this soldier occupied a one-room tenement with his wife and five children, whose ages range from 2½ to 14 years; that they are now practically destitute and living under conditions detrimental to their health; and whether he will take steps to provide adequate maintenance and decent housing accommodation for this family?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. While it is true that this soldier was awarded the Victoria Cross in 1901, there are special features connected with the case as to which I am communicating with the hon. Member.

Mr. DAVISON: Is it not possible to do something with regard to rendering financial assistance to the family of the dead soldier?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am not quite sure whether we have any power to do so, but I will look into the matter, and if it be possible to do anything, I will see that it is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

"IRISH BULLETIN."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a publication known as the "Irish Bulletin" has been published by the Sinn Fein party; whether the publication was largely in the hands of the hon. Member for the Pembroke Division of Dublin; whether the hon. Member was recently captured by the Crown forces; whether the premises where the "Irish Bulletin" was printed were subsequently raided by Crown forces, and the printing plant, paper, list of addresses to which the "Irish Bulletin" was sent, and other information was seized; whether members of the Crown forces or other Government servants have since printed and uttered forged copies of the "Irish Bulletin"; whether this was for propaganda purposes; and whether these forgeries are still being printed and uttered; and whether he is aware that genuine copies of the "Irish Bulletin" are also being distributed as before?

Mr. NEWBOULD: 15.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the articles seized in a raid in Dublin on 26th March included the typewriters and Roneo machines by which the "Irish Bulletin" was produced, and the list of names and addresses of those to whom it was sent; and whether, in view of the fact that forged copies of the "Bulletin" are being circulated, he will make searching inquiries as to what persons have been in possession of these articles and documents since their capture?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I have nothing to add to the reply given by me to a similar question on the 7th instant.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these forgeries are still being circulated,
with the London postmark, and that I got one half an hour ago? Can he assure the House that this work of forgery is not being conducted by any Government Department in London, in connection with the Irish Office?

Mr. HENRY: So far as I am aware—I can only speak for my own Department—we are not doing it. I am not able to tell the postmark, because I have not access to the hon. Member's correspondence.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the benevolent politicians not to waste their money in sending me any more of their forgeries.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—is he aware that the genuine "Irish Bulletin" is still being published?

Mr. HENRY: No, I am not.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Does the right hon. Gentleman know where the plant is that has been captured? Is it in his possession or under his control?

Mr. HENRY: If it has been captured by forces of the Crown, it is still in our possession.

SHOOTINGS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary the result of the inquiry held into the deaths while in police custody of James Looby and William Delaney, of Cashel, on 18th December; whether an inquiry has been held into the death of Lawrence Looby, brother of the above, on 19th December, and with what result; whether he is aware that the police who arrested James Looby were masked and in civilian clothes; and that Lawrence Looby was murdered by a party of men similarly attired and disguised?

Mr. HENRY: The finding of the Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest in each of the three cases mentioned was that the deceased was shot by the military who fired in the execution of their duty; that the deceased was himself to blame in that he attempted to break his arrest while in the lawful custody of the military, and that no blame attached to the military authorities or to any member thereof. In
view of these findings the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's question does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the excuse for detaining these men in custody that they were attempting to escape is discredited both in Ireland and, to a great extent, in this country?

Mr. HENRY: I prefer to accept the findings of the Court of Inquiry.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the officers of the Crown in this case were in mufti?

Mr. HENRY: No, Sir. I do not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a report of the shooting and killing of Henry Guy, an ex-soldier, who served nearly all through the last War, and the shooting and wounding of two children named Joseph Arnold and Robert Magee, aged 14 and 15, respectively, by auxiliary police on the afternoon of 6th March; whether this man and the children were in a football held at Saxe Lane, Sutton Cross, County Dublin, when they were fired on; whether any compensation will be paid to the relatives; and, if so, by whom?

Mr. HENRY: The finding of the Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest in the case of Henry Guy was that his death was caused by gunshot wounds inflicted by members of the auxiliary police, who fired in the execution of their duty. According to the police reports the deceased was one of a crowd of men who were collected in a field at Sutton off the main road from Dublin to Howth, about 3.30 p.m. on the 6th ultimo. A patrol of auxiliaries in a motor tender while proceeding along the road observed the crowd and called upon them to halt and hold up their hands. Instead of complying with the order the crowd attempted to disperse, and the auxiliaries thereupon fired, killing Guy and wounding two boys aged 15 and 16 respectively. It was subsequently found that the crowd was unarmed, and the consequences of the shooting, which was considered by the Court of Inquiry to have been justifiable in the circumstances, having regard to the constantly repeated
attacks upon Crown forces in Dublin, are much regretted. The question of making some compensation to the mother of Henry Guy is under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the field where this tragedy occurred "had been lent for the purpose of football by a naval officer who has property in the neighbourhood, and does the right hon. Gentleman really maintain that these forces are justified in firing at football crowds under these circumstances?

Mr. HENRY: It is extremely rare that a crowd of that kind would assemble without attack being made on the forces of the Crown.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I press for an answer? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this field, through the benevolence of this naval officer, has been used for years for football by young men in the neighbourhood and that they always gathered there?

Mr. HENRY: I am not able to say anything as to the use of the field for years.

Captain REDMOND: Has the Attorney-General ever been to a football match?

Mr. HENRY: I am afraid I have not?

Captain REDMOND: You know nothing about it?

Arrest (Mrs. Ryan).

Mr. NEWBOULD: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mrs. Ryan, wife of the hon. Member for South Wexford, was arrested on 16th February and fined £50, not £15 as previously stated, for refusing to put a Martial Law Proclamation in her window; whether she refused to pay and after 10 days was released from prison and given seven days in which to pay, in default of which her furniture was to be seized; whether the fine has yet been paid; and what further action has been taken in the case?

Mr. HENRY: I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that Mrs. Ryan was detained in custody for 10 days before her trial, but was released immediately after the trial and given seven days in which to pay the fine imposed. The amount of the fine was £50, not £15 as stated in my reply to a previous question
by the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Hull Division on the 3rd ultimo. The mistake in the figure was due to an error in transmission in the original report furnished by wire to the Commander-in-Chief. On the fine not being paid within the seven days allowed, a distress warrant was issued, but was not put into effect, as the lady had meanwhile disposed of her property and disappeared. Her offence was refusal to exhibit a Martial Law Proclamation.

DISTURBANCE, ELPHIN.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the two constables arrested on the charge of breaking the windows at St. Patrick's Church and doing other damage, amounting to £200, in the town of Elphin on 8th February, have since their arrest been at any time on duty; whether they have yet been brought to trial; and with what result?

Mr. HENRY: One of the two constables who was implicated in this matter was dealt with on a disciplinary charge for drunkenness, as there was not evidence on which to proceed against him for the malicious injury. The other constable whom it was intended to bring to trial was being conveyed with another constable in military custody from. Strokes-town to Longford on the 23rd ultimo, when an ambush took place, in which two military officers and one soldier were killed and three soldiers and one constable were wounded. The two constables who were in custody were taken prisoners by the rebels, and have not been heard of since. It is feared that they have been murdered.

DUBLIN POLICE, PENSIONS.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 23.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that there have been cases, both in England and Ireland, in which permission has been given to rejoin the police and to count previous service for pension, although no reason for leaving the force was assigned; whether he will explain why Constable John Holohan, who has been permitted to rejoin the Dublin Metropolitan Police, has been denied permission to count for pension his previous service of six years with the police and his three years of active service in the Royal Navy, the reason given being that he retired from the Dublin Police expressing an intention
of joining the London Police; and is he aware that Constable Holohan did not carry out any such intention, but within 20 days of leaving the Dublin Police joined on active service the Royal Navy, served on several battleships and destroyers, was torpedoed, and received the Good Conduct Badge of the Navy in 1918?

Mr. HENRY: When a constable of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the purposes of the late War enlisted in the Army, Navy or Air Force with the consent of the Chief Commissioner, there is power on his return to the police force, if the Lord Lieutenant so directs, to reckon his military service as police service for the purpose of calculating police pay and subsequent pension, and this power has been exercised in all proper cases. Constable Holohan severed his connection with the Dublin Metropolitan Police before joining the Navy and did not apply for re-admission to the force for more than six months after his demobilisation. He was re-admitted on the distinct understanding that he could not claim any benefit from previous service in the police force or the Navy. In England it is possible, under the Police (Superannuation) Act, 1906, to reckon discontinuous police service as approved service for pension, but there is no corresponding enactment as regards Irish police forces.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Will the Lord Lieutenant be asked to exercise dispensing powers in this case, seeing the patriotic action of this man in joining within 20 days, as he was not one of the standbacks, but joined up at once?

Mr. HENRY: I regret very much that we are bound by the Statute.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Surely the rules cannot be so hide bound. There must be some dispensing power?

Mr. HENRY: I should be very glad indeed if I could advise that it was within our power.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of assimilating the Irish practice with the English practice so as to put the Irish police pensioners upon the same favourable terms as the English pensioners?

Mr. HENRY: In most cases that is so, but it would require legislation in this particular case, and we are not prepared to do that.

HOUSE DESTRUCTION.

Captain W. BENN: 24.
asked the Chief Secretary whether it is with the authority of the Government that houses are destroyed as reprisals; what are the grounds on which such destructions are ordered; and whether the owners of the houses have any opportunity of rebutting the evidence on which it is decided to destroy their property?

Mr. HENRY: Action of this character is taken on the responsibility of the Military Governor in the exercise of his powers under martial law, and it must rest with him to make such enquiry as he considers necessary. The Military Governor is in every case a senior military officer necessarily and properly entrusted with wide powers and responsibilities. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stated on the 19th instant, the general policy pursued by the Military Governors in Ireland has the full approval of His Majesty's Government, but I would point out that it would not be consistent with the essential character of martial law that the Government should seek to interfere with these officers in the details of their administration.

Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, whether the owners of the houses have an opportunity of rebutting the evidence?

Mr. HENRY: The military governor, who is a senior officer, before exercising power of the kind would naturally hear anything that was to be said.

Captain BENN: But I am asking whether the persons whose houses are burned have any opportunity of rebutting the evidence on which the burning is decided?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly. The military authority hears anything they have got to say or anyone on their behalf.

Major M. WOOD: Does he invite them to state their case before their property is destroyed?

Captain BENN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would be content to provide this House with copies of the evidence on which it is decided that the burnings should take place?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Attorney-General aware that in at least two cases the houses burned belonged to ex-service men, and how is it that the property of ex-service men is destroyed?

Mr. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary what is the justification for the destruction in Ennis and Tralee, nine houses being bombed in Tralee, and in one house a woman and her child were very nearly killed by a bomb exploding in the room where they slept; and whether the Government will take steps immediately to put a stop to these outrageous depredations on people whose connection with crime is unproved and probably non-existent?

Mr. HENRY: These places are in the martial law area and my right hon. Friend has, therefore, called for a report from the Commander-in-Chief. If the hon. Member will repeat the question on Thursday of next week I hope then to be in a position to furnish him with a reply.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will repeat the question.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will utilise the forthcoming elections in Ireland to effect a reconciliation with the Irish people; and whether, with that object in view, he will announce that the Government are prepared to give to Ireland the fullest self-government consistent with the unity and safety of the Empire, and that they will submit their scheme to the elected representatives of both Irish Parliaments?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): As the House is aware, I have repeatedly stated that the Government are ready to meet representatives of the Irish people for the purpose of discussing any proposals which offer the prospect of reconciliation and settlement, subject only to the reservations that the strategic unity of the Empire must be safeguarded, and that Ulster must not be coerced. I have also repeatedly offered to give every facility
and safe conduct for a meeting of the members of Dail Eireann, with the exception of four members accused of serious crime. To this invitation, which is still open, there has been no response.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the condition of laying down arms before they can attend this conference is still maintained by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have repeatedly explained to the House that no condition of that kind has ever been imposed as a preliminary to a meeting with Dail Eireann. That is purely in reference to the question of the truce.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to meet the newly elected members without any reservations whatever?

The PRIME MINISTER: They must be subject to the same rules as even Members of this House are. If they are guilty of crime, they must be subject to the law of the land.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Are the agents of the Government themselves entirely free from crime?

SOUTHERN PARLIAMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that arrangements are now being made to set up the new Irish Parliaments; and whether he will take steps to withhold the necessary orders for summoning a Parliament in Southern Ireland until the country is in a. more peaceful condition?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask if the question is put as a result of conferences between the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) and Dail Eireann?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether he is aware that the point of our questions about the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is not whether he is a conscious or unconscious tool of Michael Collins, but the fact that Michael Collins has published a letter showing he
welcomes and values the help which the hon. and gallant Member has given him for weeks past by asking questions in this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I had better keep out of this, otherwise I might get a bullet from gunmen on both sides. Representations have come from Ireland in regard to this matter. The Government have these representations under consideration, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question to-night on the Motion for the Adjournment I hope I shall be able to give him an answer.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May I ask whether, if the Government come to the decision to go on with the election for the South of Ireland Parliament, he will give an opportunity to the House to discuss the matter before the Orders in Council are issued to make irrevocable the summoning of the Parliament for that area?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not like to give an answer with regard to the business of the House in the absence of the Leader of the House, but I think it is desirable, if there is a decision of that kind, that the House should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. There is one way which could be taken, and that is by putting down Irish Estimates next week, which would be in time. However, all I can say at present is, that I think my hon. Friend is right in assuming that the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion if the Government decide not to postpone it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before the Government come to a decision on this very important question, will they reflect on the disastrous consequences of scrapping another Government of Ireland Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: There will be no scrapping of the Government of Ireland Act.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has consulted the leader of the Activist party in the Dail Eireann, namely, Mr. Michael Collins, and, if not, will he use the good offices of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know who the Activist members are; per-
haps the hon. and gallant Member, who knows better than I do, will be able to supply me with the information.

PRISONS AND INTERNMENT CAMPS.

Mr. MYERS: 67.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received any complaints regarding the alleged brutal treatment of men in Cork gaol and detention camp who are recovering from hunger strike and are still in delicate health; and whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the case of one man named Burke, in which visitors are being refused permission to see him?

Mr. HENRY: As regards the treatment of these men up to their transfer from civil to military custody on 29th March last, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on the 7th instant. No complaints have been received regarding their treatment while in military custody; on the contrary, Burke stated on the 8th instant that he was perfectly satisfied with his treatment. Burke and another late hunger-striker assaulted a warder in the civil jail on the evening of the 23rd ultimo, when a determined attempt by armed rebels was made to release men from the civil jail. The late hunger-strikers were then removed to the Military Detention Barracks, and Burke and the other man, as a punishment, are at present not allowed to see visitors.

Mr. ACLAND: 68.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the many statements as to the insanitary conditions of many of the Irish prisons and internment camps and as to hardships inflicted on prisoners, many of whom are untried and uncharged, he will state what arrangements are made for the inspection of prisons by visiting justices or other independent inspectors; whether inspections are carried out in prisons and internment camps which are under military control; whether he has received through inspectors any complaints of hardship or brutality; and, if so, whether any action has been take in the matter?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 78.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the internment camps in which untried men and women are detained in Ireland, and the military barracks and bridewells
through which most of them pass to trial or internment, are subject to the ordinary system of prison inspection?

Mr. HENRY: In the ordinary course all civil prisons are visited by visiting justices. No complaints as to hardships or brutality have been received from any such justices, nor, am I aware, so far as regards civil prisons, of any such complaints received from any other source. As regards military places of detention and internment camps, these are regularly inspected by senior military officers and medical officers, and an inspector of military prisons and internment camps has recently been appointed. In the last three months eight complaints of ill-treatment have been received. They have been carefully investigated, but the investigation in each case has shown that the conditions complained of were not of the nature alleged. I may add as regards internment camps that many of the internees have written to their friends speaking highly of the good treatment they are receiving.

BURNING, WESTPORT.

Mr. ACLAND: 69.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the burning of part of the town of Westport, in County Mayo, was an official reprisal for an ambush at a place seven miles distant; if not, whether any steps have been taken to bring to trial those who were responsible for the burning; and whether compensation will be paid by the Government for the damage done?

Mr. HENRY: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given by me to a similar question on this subject by the right hon. Member on the 14th instant.

Mr. ACLAND: I will repeat the question next Thursday.

"WEEKLY SUMMARY"

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 71.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the general interest aroused in the "Weekly Summary," he will place it on sale at His Majesty's Stationery Office?

Mr. HENRY: No, Sir.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any reason why, in respect of an important document like
this, the Government consider it necessary that the issue shall not be available for general perusal?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They are ashamed of it.

Major M. WOOD: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why copies of this document have not been placed in the Library as promised?

Mr. HENRY: I will have inquiries made into that.

HORSES KILLED.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 73.
asked the Chief Secretary the number of horses killed by members of the Irish republican army during the present month in Ireland and the circumstances under which they were killed?

Mr. HENRY: There have been three outrages of this character all in the Dublin Metropolitan Area during the present month. Two horses and one mule were killed and two horses and three mules wounded. In each case the circumstances were similar. Army service wagons were held up by armed men, and, as the drivers being unarmed could offer no resistance, the unfortunate horses were deliberately shot in the most callous manner. Two of the mules when taken out of the wagon were able to stagger through the barracks. Thanks to the sedulous care bestowed upon them by their attendant, they are now recovering from their injuries. I think that the House will agree that for pure brutality these outrages are unsurpassed even in the records of Sinn Fein.

ALIENS.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 74.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the regulations as to the registration of aliens resident in Ireland are still enforced; and whether he is in a position to state the number of Germans, Russians, and other aliens at present resident in Ireland and their respective occupations?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the collection of this information would take some little time, and would entail an amount of labour which I am reluctant at the present moment to impose on the police.

Sir S. BENN: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider it necessary to have the information, even if he does not think it necessary or desirable to publish it?

Mr. HENRY: Of course, we have some information on the subject, but it would not be desirable to put the police to the trouble now, having regard to the very serious duties imposed upon them.

COURT-MARTIAL (PLATOON COMMANDER).

Mr. RAFFAN: 75.
asked the Chief Secretary the result of the court-martial on the platoon commander, I company, Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, who was put back for court-martial in January for theft while searching a house?

Mr. HENRY: Owing to the difficulty of obtaining the attendance of witnesses from England and elsewhere, this case has not yet been brought to trial, but the officer charged is under close arrest.

Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me any information when the trial is likely to take place?

Mr. HENRY: No, Sir; I cannot name a date, but I will take care it is expedited as much as possible.

FIRE BRIGADE, DUBLIN.

Mr. KILEY: 76.
asked the Chief Secretary what was the result of the court-martial on two temporary cadets, auxiliary division, who were to be tried for holding up the superintendent of the Dublin Fire "Brigade (Balls Bridge) by force as a reprisal for the superintendent identifying certain cadets on parade a few days previously?

Mr. HENRY: If the hon. Member will refer to a reply which I gave to a similar question on the 14th instant he will find that the allegation that the superintendent and other members of the fire brigade were threatened with violence on the 15th January was not substantiated in the official inquiry held into the matter. No cadets, therefore, are awaiting trial by court-martial on this charge.

BELFAST GOODS BOYCOTT.

Mr. KENYON: 77.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the military governor of the Cork area has issued an Order to the "Cork Examiner" newspaper that no
reference to the Belfast boycott is to be published without reference to the military governor's headquarters; whether this order was issued on account of the publication of an item of news relating to the boycott which was issued from Dublin Castle; and whether, as the Order has been issued under a misapprehension, it will be withdrawn?

Mr. HENRY: I have called for a Report from the Commander-in-Chief with reference to this matter, as the allegation refers to the martial law area. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question, of which I only received notice yesterday, on one day next week.

AMERICAN RELIEF COMMITTEE.

Sir F. HALL: 79.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement issued by the American Committee for Relief in Ireland in appealing for funds in which, among other statements, it is alleged that famine is about to add thousands of innocent victims to the hundreds of thousands already in need of the bare necessities that keep body and soul together; whether the death-rate in Ireland since 1914, apart from the unprecedented number of murders committed by the Sinn Feiners, compares very favourably with that of England; and whether any protest has been addressed to the American Government regarding the activities of this and other anti-British organisations?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The statement appeared as a full page advertisement in the "Washington Herald" of the 24th ultimo, over the name of a Mr. Hugh Reilly, who is described as treasurer to the American Committee for Relief in Ireland. With regard to the third part of the question, I have not at present before me the corresponding figures for the mortality in England, but the latest figures of the Irish death-rate are the lowest for many years and the health statistics generally are exceptionally favourable. No protest has been addressed to the American Government in the matter as the Committee is entirely unofficial in character, but a statement setting out the true facts of the situation was issued to the American Press on the 14th instant. I will arrange
for a transcript of that statement to be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement:

The following official statement was issued from Dublin Castle to-day [14th April, 1921].

"The attention of the Irish Government has been called to statements which have recently been published in America in the name of the American Committee for Relief in Ireland to support appeals for funds, and which so grossly misrepresent conditions in Ireland as to call for refutation.

'Famine,' it is alleged,' is about to add thousands of innocent victims to the hundreds of thousands already in need of the bare necessities that keep body and soul together. In every Irish village and town sickness, pestilence and death invade the humble homes striking swiftly and surely the mother and children incapable of resistance through months of struggle against cold and hunger.' … 'Children of tender years, ragged and wretched, trudge daily through the cold to a school now used for a relief station to obtain the one meal a day on which they live—a piece of bread and a warm drink.'

There is not one word of truth in this statement.

Conditions in Ireland are far from being as stated. Neither failure of crops nor stoppage of food imports has occurred to give rise to a food scarcity. Food supplies in Ireland, except in the case of a few imported articles such as tea, are in fact rather greater than normal. Food prices are considerably less than in England, and are still falling. Farm butter at 60 cents a pound, fresh eggs at 3 cents each, were the average prices realised last week in the seven leading markets of Ireland, and at smaller markets prices as low as 2 cents each for eggs and 42 cents a pound for farm butter were quoted. Potatoes were marketed and sold in the seven leading markets at an average price of approximately two dollars per 112 pounds, and supplies obtained in country districts from local growers were obtainable at very much cheaper rates. Flour is scarce in a few places, but only by reason of the fact that armed rebels as a measure of boycott have deliberately burnt or interfered with the supplies which normally flow into these districts. Indeed, the one cause likely to give rise to hardship and distress in the near future is the insensate destruction wrought by the Irish Republican Army, who in parts of the West of Ireland have deliberately blocked all communication by the destruction of roads and bridges and have compelled the stoppage of railroad traffic by wanton and unprovoked attacks upon trains. For hardship so caused the communities which harbour the perpetrators of the damage cannot be absolved from responsibility any more than they can be saved from the suffering which must arise as a result.

Not only are food supplies at the present time ample, but there is no shortage of
money with which to buy food. It is a fact that Ireland as a whole is less affected by the present trade depression than either England or Scotland. As an agricultural country it has had, not only during the War, but also since its stoppage, a period of unequalled prosperity, and labour has commanded the highest wages in Irish history. As a result the returns of poverty and destitution are considerably below their pre-War levels, notwithstanding that the population (estimated for the year 1921 at 4,502,000) has increased, and is increasing. Ulster, for example, had for the year 1920 a daily average of only 5,518 sick, infirm, and destitute inmates of workhouses as compared with 7,759 in 1914; Munster had 7,869 as compared with 10,782; Leinster 8,062 as compared with 12,326; and Con-naught 2,478 as against 3,182. Of poor and needy persons in receipt of relief who were nevertheless not inmates of workhouses, there were, during 1920, for the whole of Ireland a daily average of 36,550 as compared with 38,212 during 1914, a decrease which, if not very marked, is sufficient nevertheless to refute suggestions of abnormal destitution. Statistics for the first quarter of 1921 are not yet complete, but they show no change for the worse. In fact their trend is best suggested by the movement which is on foot among a number of local authorities (county councils, etc.) for the amalgamation of poor law unions and the abolition of workhouses which are superfluous.

In this connection it may be added that Ireland, as a result of the famines of years ago, has special administrative machinery for the immediate detection and relief of destitution. Four hundred and fifty relieving officers are posted throughout the country, in whose power and whose duty it is to provide immediate relief to any case of destitution pending adjudication, of the case by the local board of guardians. Even if one of those officers had no funds available, his written order upon a shopkeeper for food would be a debt due by the Board and legally recoverable by law. This machinery is quite independent of the Government.

The statement alleging the conversion of schools into relief stations is a particularly high flight of fancy. The National Board of Education has no knowledge of a single case of the kind.

The statement as to 'sickness, pestilence and death invading humble homes, etc.,' is equally mendacious. The health statistics of Ireland are at present exceptionally favourable, and not for many years has the death rate been so low. Dublin's mortality, usually the highest in the country, was for the past quarter at the rate of only 19½1 per thousand inhabitants per annum as against 26½4 for the preceding ten years. Reports from the Local Government Board's medical inspectors indicate that the country generally has never been so free from disease. As further indications of a healthy prosperity it may be added that the birth rate and the marriage rate for Ireland for 1920 exceeded all records.

Nor is unemployment, though serious in the linen and shipbuilding industries of the North, in any way comparable with the unemployment that exists in England. The Committee for the Relief of Unemployment for the United Kingdom, which has several millions of pounds of funds at its disposal, has received applications for grants from only 13 of the 100 urban district councils in Ireland. Unemployment figures have risen in the past three months, it is true, owing to world trade depression, and in the whole of Ireland 103,556 persons are now registered as out of work. But of this number 78,752 are receiving full unemployment benefit under the Act passed by the British Parliament last year and 12,537 more are receiving the out-of-work donation payable to ex-soldiers and sailors. These gallant Irishmen served with Americans in the Great War, and because they served many of them are now boycotted and cannot therefore secure employment in Ireland, their native country. A number have indeed been murdered in cold blood.

From the facts set out above it will be seen that neither in the matter of famine, nor of poverty, nor of disease, nor in any other of the details mentioned does the state of Ireland to-day approximate to the harrowing conditions described in the appeal which is being made to the generosity of American citizens. The use of inaccurate statements such as these does little to maintain the claim of the organisation that employs them to be 'non-political and non-sectarian,' and precludes any such claim being made for the sources from which that organisation's information about Ireland is derived."

Sir F. HALL: In sending that transcript would it not be possible also to state the death rate per thousand in England and also the death rate per thousand in Ireland—to set them down plainly alongside this extremely monstrous statement?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In sending out these particulars, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also point out that there is no restriction on the standard strength of beer in Ireland; also that they have unlimited quantities of pre-War whisky, and no Liquor Control Board; and also that they are in a better position in this matter than Great Britain, and in an immeasurably better position than the United States itself?

AUXILIARY FORCES (CONTROL).

Captain REDMOND: 80.
asked the Chief Secretary what steps he has taken to give effect to the assurance he gave some time ago to this House that the placing of the auxiliary forces in Ireland under military discipline and control would be immediately considered by the Govern-
ment; whether these forces are still acting outside the recognised military authority in Ireland; and whether, in view of the strong expressions of opinion from many quarters in the House, he is prepared to take measures forthwith to place the auxiliary Irish forces under effective military discipline and control?

Mr. HENRY: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has discussed this question fully both with the Commander-in-Chief and with his legal advisers. It is clear that only under martial law could the auxiliary division be brought under full military control. I am, however, satisfied that the arrangements at present in operation are sufficient to ensure the maintenance of the highest standard of discipline.

Captain REDMOND: Has the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—if the Chief Secretary had been present I would have asked him—been called to a letter that appeared in the Press yesterday from the Prime Minister in which he described this force as a regular force; and can he now give a definition of the term "regular"?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Apart from the question of discipline, would it not be an advantage to this gallant force to be directly under the Commander-in-Chief, as at present no one seems to be in a position adequately to arrange for their medical necessities or administrative needs?

Mr. HENRY: There are many difficulties in the way of bringing a force of this kind absolutely under military control. In the martial law areas they are under military control. Steps are being taken in the other areas, on the advice of the Commander-in-Chief, to see that discipline is properly enforced.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that they have no medical staff of any kind, and that when the men get wounded they have to undergo great and unnecessary suffering in consequence?

Mr. HENRY: I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend that the military medical system is at their disposal, and I promised him that I would have the matter dealt with.

Captain REDMOND: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that this is a regular force; if so, under what code or under what control are they?

Mr. HENRY: I must have notice of that question.

Captain REDMOND: A most irregular force!

Captain ELLIOT: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that during the War every force, however small, had to have a medical equipment, even small infantry units; and can he say how it is that these units, under active service conditions, take the field without any medical equipment whatever?

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange to utilise some of the redundant doctors in the Health Department for this Service?

Lord R. CECIL: What are the difficulties in the way of putting this force under military discipline?

Mr. HENRY: The noble Lord is aware that you cannot bring a body of persons who have been enlisted voluntarily under one system suddenly, and under the Military Act, without their consent.

Captain W. BENN: Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman just say that in the martial law areas that had already been done?

Mr. HENRY: Yes, but a martial law area is quite different from an ordinary area.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Is not the fact that these troops, regular and irregular, are not under proper military discipline confirmed by the fact that never in the history of modern warfare or armies have so many members of the forces been tried and convicted of heinous offences?

Mr. HENRY: I do not accept that, nor do I accept the description of them as "irregular forces." They are men who have the highest record in the Army.

POLICE AND AUXILIARIES, CASTLECONNER.

Mr. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether it is not a fact that in the fight between the police and the auxiliaries at Castleconner
Mr. O'Donnovan, the proprietor of the hotel, was taken out into the yard and placed against a wall and there assassinated, while the life of the policeman by his side was spared?

Mr. HENRY: I have not yet received the report of the Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest, but I am informed that this allegation is indignantly denied, and the police state that Mr. O'Donovan was killed in the course of the melee.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will repeat the question when the right hon. Gentleman has got a further report.

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Mr. DOYLE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister what efforts are being made by the Supreme Council to bring to an end the state of active war between the Greeks and the Turks; if the Allies have taken effective precautions against an attempt to force the Dardanelles and capture Constantinople; and to what extent this country is financially committed to either side in carrying on a struggle fraught with such grave possibilities to the peace of Europe?

The PRIME MINISTER: The present hostilities arose in spite of the recent efforts of the Supreme Council to reconcile Greece and Turkey. Further intervention at the present stage could therefore hardly serve any useful purpose. As regards the second part of the question, Constantinople is in the military occupation of the Allies, who have agreed to maintain an attitude of strict neutrality. The answer to the last part of the quesion is that this country is in no way financially committed to either side.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Greeks should beat the Turks in any way no one in India will believe that they have done it without help, or will believe other than that the British Government were the helpers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry to say that we cannot help that. We are not in the least helping the Greeks.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the sufferings of the Moslem
population under the régime introduced by the Greeks in the territories occupied by them in Asia Minor; and whether, in view of the fact that the present unrest in India is largely attributable to the situation in Smyrna and Thrace, he will cause an impartial inquiry to be made into the conditions prevailing in these districts and publish the results?

The PRIME MINISTER: Various allegations and counter-allegations by both parties to the present hostilities have been brought to the attention of His Majesty's Government, and the question of sending officers from Constantinople to certain localities with a view to inquire into some of these charges in now under consideration.

Major GLYN: 55.
asked the Prime Minister what information has been received from Athens and Constantinople to indicate what is the present situation in Asia Minor; whether the Greek Government intend to continue these operations; how far does this campaign modify or alter the decisions of the conferences in London and at Sèvrs; and whether any date has yet been fixed for the renewal of the Conference held in March in London?

The PRIME MINISTER: No important developments have been reported since the Greek withdrawal towards Brussa, in the north, and from Afuin Kara Hissar, in the south. His Majesty's Government have no information which would lead them to think that the Greek Government do not intend to continue operations. With regard to the third part of the question, the decisions alluded to have not been modified by this campaign. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are British Military Attaches attached to these forces?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure of that.

RUSSIA (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Mr. DOYLE: 27.
asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied that the recent Trade Agreement with the Soviet Government of Russia is being loyally carried out by the latter; and if, since the pledge was given, no Bolshevist propaganda inimical to the best interests of
the British Empire is being, pursued either in this country, India, or the countries where the British have a mandate?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far His Majesty's Government have found no reason for taking exception to the manner in which the terms of the Agreement have been carried out; nor has there been any evidence that Bolshevik propaganda has been continued since the date of the signing of the Agreement.

EUROPEAN TRADE.

Mr. STEVENS: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has adopted any policy which will enable the production of commodities for export to be normally continued at prices which will at least provide a living wage to the workpeople without entailing loss to the employer or to the country; if so, what is that policy; and, if the Government have no such policy, has he formulated any plan of action which will materially assist our export merchants to renew their normal trade?

Sir S. BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what steps, if any, are being taken at the moment by the Government in order to get some unified action by the Allies in the late War for the purpose of reconstructing the trade of Europe?

The PRIME MINISTER: This subject was under consideration at the Brussels Financial Conference, upon whose recommendations it was transferred to the charge of the Advisory Economic and Finance Committee of the League of Nations, a Committee which is preparing the material for a general Economic and Financial Conference which it is intended shall be held in due course. The matter will also come within the scope of the forthcoming Conference in Italy, which is to endeavour to improve the economic relations between the Succession States, Austria and Italy. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the League of Nations have adopted, and are arranging to give effect to, a scheme commonly known as the Ter Meulen Scheme, for affording credit to countries in need of financial assistance, and His Majesty's Government and the French, Italian, and Japan-
ese Governments have recently intimated their willingness, on certain conditions, to postpone their liens on Austrian State assets, to enable Austria to benefit by this scheme. The British Exports Credits Scheme, the details of which are generally known, should also contribute materially to the development of international trade.

Lord R. CECIL: Have the other Powers that have a lien upon Austrian finance also agreed to postpone their debt?

Mr. STEVENS: Were the United States of America, which are concerned in these matters, officially represented at the Conference, and was this country officially represented there?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure about the other Powers. They were not at the Conference, but I do not think that there will be any difficulty in getting them to assent. I hope that arrangements are being made for that, because I agree with my Noble Friend that it is desirable that they should be associated with any proposal of this kind. I am not quite sure whether the United States of America were represented there or what the decision of their Government is

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the approximate date when these decisions are likely to become operative?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated dissent.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.

Captain W. BENN: 29.
asked the Prime Minister for how long the office of Lord Chief Justice remained unfilled; and what was the reason for the delay in making the appointment?

The PRIME MINISTER: The office was vacated on the 7th March. The acceptance of the present Lord Chief Justice was received on the 11th April.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, as to the cause of the delay in making the appointment?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is a very important position, and, as my hon. Friend knows well, it takes some people more time than others, to make a selection.

Mr. HOGGE: Were any conditions attached to this appointment?

The PRIME MINISTER: None whatever.

WAR EXPENDITURE AND LOANS.

Major HAMILTON: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the total expenditure of the Governments of the British Empire, including the Indian Empire, on the Great War and the total amount of loans made by the United Kingdom to our Dominions and Allies, including any loans from America which were guaranteed by the United Kingdom?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young): I am not at present in a position to give reliable figures of the total expenditure of the Governments mentioned in the first part of the question, but I am having careful examination made of the possibility of compiling a Return on this subject. The total Exchequer issues in the case of the United Kingdom from 3rd August, 1914, to 31st March, 1920, were £11,196,927,000. The total amount of cash advances from Votes to Dominions and Allies to 31st March, 1921 (including those for relief), was approximately £1,810,000,000, and the debts due from Dominions and Allies and outstanding on that date total £1,947,600,000. With the exception of the Anglo-French Loan of $500,000,000 paid off last October and guaranteed jointly and severally by the Governments of the United Kingdom and of France, no loans from America were guaranteed by this country. In this connection, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 11th instant, and of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TURKEY.

Mr. LUNN: 33.
asked the Prime Minister what is the position with regard to the conclusion of a Treaty of Peace with Turkey?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Treaty of Peace which was signed with Turkey
on 10th August last at Sèvres has not been ratified. Modifications have been suggested to Greece and Turkey as a result of the recent conference here, but have not yet been accepted.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. LYLE: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the repeated attempts to represent Germany as poverty stricken and impoverished; whether, seeing that reliable reports indicate her ability, on the contrary, to make very substantial statements if she seriously intends and ever means to do so, he will take steps to satisfy the desire of the people of this country, who are getting tired of the interminable delay in this matter of reparation by the Government at Berlin?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Monday last to questions by the hon. and gallant Members for Central Hull and for Leith.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that not only the German railways but many of the leading industries have been very heavily subsidised and that many businesses have declared dividends of 30 to 40 per cent?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the result already attained by the sanctions applied to Germany; and whether any further sanctions are in contemplation?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is too early to state the result of the sanctions already applied, as there has not yet been time for them to take effect. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last to questions on this subject.

Mr. C. WHITE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state in which of the Allied countries legislation similar to the German Reparation (Recovery) Act has been passed?

The PRIME MINISTER: Legislation similar to the German Reparation (Recovery) Act has been passed by the Chamber in France, and by both Chambers in Belgium. Greece, Serbia, Liberia, Portugal, Siam, Rumania, Italy, and Japan have initiated similar legislation.

Mr. WHITE: Will the 50 per cent, tariff that is to be imposed apply to the coal that is now being sent by Germany to France, either as part of the indemnity or in any other way?

The PRIME MINISTER: That has nothing to do with this question. If notice be given, I shall see exactly what will be the effect.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the reports true that the Austrian Government has also been required to introduce legislation of this character against Germany?

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many complications have arisen in this country owing to our passing this legislation, whilst our Allies have done nothing of the kind, and will he not be prepared to suspend it until our Allies have entered into some arrangement regarding this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: We must look after our own interests.

Mr. KILEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when and where the Allied Conference will be held which is to discuss the question of the further sanctions to be applied to Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: No Inter-Allied Conference has yet been fixed, but I am having an informal meeting with M. Briand this week-end, at which we shall have a preliminary exchange of views.

YAP ISLAND.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether information has been received that the diplomatic correspondence between America on the one side and Japan and the other Allies on the other regarding the mandate for the Island of Yap has been published in Washington; and whether he will cause a copy of this correspondence to be placed in the Library of the House in order that both the Japanese and American cases in regard to this mandated island may be examined by Members?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House with regard to negotiations between the United States and Japan upon the subject of Yap?

The PRIME MINISTER: The correspondence between the United States and Japanese Government was published in yesterday's London Press. The only paper in that correspondence which has been communicated to His Majesty's Government officially is the Japanese note of 26th February.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report appearing in the "Times" newspaper is not complete; and is it not desirable, in view of the enormous importance of the questions raised, that the whole correspondence should be published, in order that the public may be fully informed on all the details?

Sir J. D. REES: Does membership of the League make it necessary for this nation to be placed in a position of antagonism to either one or both of two great friendly Powers and apart altogether from membership of the League, does the British nation care a rap about the Island of Yap?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have to give notice of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not most important that any question of antagonism between ourselves and the United States should be eliminated as soon as possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no question of antagonism between ourselves and the United States. We have no interests in this matter except the general interests of the peace of the world and of good will between all the nations concerned. These documents have not been communicated to us officially. They were communicated to the Press. When they are communicated to us officially we shall be very pleased to inform the House.

Lord R. CECIL: Could not my right hon. Friend obtain copies from our representative in the United States?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall have to consider that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we take it that in this case we support the United States?

AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN WAR VESSELS.

Sir HOWELL DAVIES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what is the total tonnage
of the Austro-Hungarian navy; what arrangements have been carried into effect for the destruction of war vessels and for the distribution of serviceable war vessels; and to what countries the latter have been distributed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Austro-Hungarian navy no longer exists as such. Both Austria and Hungary have four small patrol vessels, each vessel being about 173 tons displacement. An Inter-Allied Committee was set up to supervise the execution of the Peace Treaties so far as they relate to the distribution and destruction of ex-enemy vessels, including the ex-Austro-Hungarian fleet. With the exception of the eight vessels already mentioned, the ex-Austro-Hungarian fleet has been distributed among the following: Great Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Rumania, Portugal, Jugo-Slavia, Danube Commission.

PERSIA.

Mr. LUNN: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the situation in Persia; how many British troops are at present in the country; and for what purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the full statements regarding the situation in Persia made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in this House on 28th February and 5th April. There are at present 2,300 British troops in Persia, and one Air Force Flight detached from Baghdad. These are being withdrawn to Mesopotamia.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

"THE CASE FOR, THE NATION."

Mr. MYERS: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the pamphlet, "The Prime Minister states the Case for the Nation," has been printed and circulated at public expense; whether he is aware that it has been circulated by attendants in places of amusement and broadcast generally; and whether he will give details of the expenditure incurred?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. The Government intend that the public shall be kept fully informed of the points at issue in a dispute which so intimately affects the nation's life; they accordingly decided that the verbatim report of the Prime Minister's statement on behalf of the Government to the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Workers' Federation on 14th April should be given the widest possible publicity throughout the country. The details of the expenditure incurred are not yet completely available.

Mr. HOGGE: Why is it called "the Case for the Nation" when it is the case for the Government?

Captain W. BENN: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the placarding of speeches of Members of this House, from the Prime Minister downwards, is an innovation in the practice of this country?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is a matter of opinion.

Captain REDMOND: Is the same course being adopted with regard to the letter that appeared in yesterday's Press over the Prime Minister's name, which is nothing but a blizzard of misrepresentation?

Mr. SPOOR: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if the object is to keep the public informed, it would be as well that the statements made by the other parties should also be published?

STATE ASSISTANCE.

Major BARNES: 64.
asked the Prime Minister if, on the occasion of a deputation to him from the National Union of Farmers, he promised to grant to the agricultural industry assistance from public moneys to tide over the situation caused by a fall in the price of wheat; if he proposes to assist the mining industry in a similar way to tide over the situation caused by a fall in the price of coal; and, if so, to what extent?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
negative; the latter part does not, therefore, arise.

Major BARNES: Is it not a fact that the millers of this country are being granted 25s. a quarter on every quarter of British milled wheat, and is not that money being given out of the trading account of the Wheat Commission, and will not -any deficiency or profit on the Wheat Commission have reference to public money, either as a charge or as an Appropriation-in-Aid?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a different question from the one on the Paper.

DECONTROL (DATE).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to numerous statements recently made by or on behalf of the miners in the public Press to the effect that the Government gave a positive pledge that coal would not be decontrolled until 31st August, 1921, and that the decontrol of coal on 31st March, 1921, was a breach of faith with the miners; and whether any such pledge was ever given or any such broach of faith committed?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself on the Second Reading of the Decontrol Bill. It was then pointed out that it had been made abundantly clear, both here and in another place, during the passage of the Mining Industry Act, that the period of extension of control provided by that Act was a maximum period, and that control would not be exercised for a moment longer than was necessary. As to any suggestion of a breach of faith with either owners or miners, I would remind the House that the owners pressed for the limitation of the period of extension to the 31st March last, and the vote of the miners' representatives against the Second Reading of the Mining Industry Bill would, if it had been successful, have led to the termination of control on 31st August last.

Mr. W. THORNE: In view of the present situation are the Government considering the advisability of releasing the
very large amount of coal now in the Thames to factories and workshops, so as to prevent their being obliged to close?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are giving most careful consideration to the distribution of the coal we have in the country

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reason why the large amount of coal that is already in ships on the Thames is not being properly distributed and is being hung up for want of instructions from the Ministry?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is being used in places where we think it is most required.

Mr. THORNE: Are you going to allow the present state of things to continue and thousands and thousands of men and women to be thrown out of employment? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is your fault!"] It is not our fault, it is yours.

RESERVE FORCES (DEMOBILISATION).

Mr. C. WHITE: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many of the Army, Navy, and Air Force Reservists who have been called to the Colours as a result of the industrial dispute are in danger of losing their employment if retained for an indefinite period; and whether he can definitely state that these men will not, when the dispute is settled, be called upon for foreign service, but will be demobilised not later than the time when the Royal Defence Force is disbanded?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to reply. With regard to the first part of the question the Government desires to make a special appeal to all employers to regard it as their duty to the nation and to the men called out in the present crisis to take them back into employment as soon as they are released. As regards the second part, I can assure the hon. Member that the Reserves were called out solely in connection with the present emergency, and there is no intention of sending them abroad. Their demobilisation will be carried out with all possible speed as soon as the situation admits.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that employers will carry out this new Order in the same
way as they carried out the 1914 Order? They left a lot of men stranded after the War.

Sir R. SANDERS: I have every hope that the employers will accede to the appeal made to them.

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are many ex-service men still unable to find employment, and that a large number of girls are employed in Government offices? Will he take steps to see that some of the girls are cleared out to make room for ex-service men?

Mr. WHITE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his pious hope is not materialising now, and that men have already lost their employment?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, I am not aware of that.

Mr. C. WHITE: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that great privation and suffering is being caused in the homes of reservists owing to the inadequacy of the separation allowances payable in the case of married men, and also owing to the fact that no separation allowances are payable in the case of single men who have mothers or other relatives solely dependent on them; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to increase the allowances in respect of married men, and provide separation allowances in the cases of dependants of single men?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Taking the rates of separation allowance given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in reply to the hon. Member's question on 12th instant, and the allotments which the reservist's pay while with the Colours enables him to make, I have no reason to think that great privation and suffering are being caused. The same amounts have been found adequate in the case of serving soldiers. I regret that it is not practicable now to reinstitute the scheme of allowances to dependants which was established exceptionally to meet the prolonged absence of men enlisted for the Great War.

Mr. WHITE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that already people
have had to apply for parish relief owing to no separation allowance being paid in the case of single men with dependants, wholly dependent on them?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is not possible to reinstitute the scheme of allowances for dependants, but it is possible for any reservist to make an allotment out of his pay to his dependants.

Mr. WHITE: As the pay is £1 a week at the outside for a private soldier, how is such a soldier to make an allotment sufficient to keep a home going?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I think his pay is more than £1 a week. In addition to that, he is entirely kept and housed while in the Army.

Mr. WHITE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman look up the scale of Army pay and see whether he is right or I am right?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I looked it up this morning.

Mr. WHITE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the pay is not 2s. 9d. a day for a private soldier?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: In the case of men with a certain amount of service it is 3s. 6d. a day, and that is what most of the reservists have.

Major COHEN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in a large number of cases employers are paying their men their ordinary wages, in spite of the fact that the men are receiving Army pay?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I was not aware of that, but I am very glad to hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 40.
asked the Prime Minister how soon the Convention for the establishment of a permanent Court of International Justice will be ratified by this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): His Majesty's Government are in consultation with the Governments of the self-governing Dominions and of India with a view to ratification taking place as soon as possible.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to consult the Dominions and India before ratification, since they were separately represented at Geneva when the Convention was agreed upon?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It was considered appropriate to do so.

Sir J. D. REES: Has it been decided how the judges will be paid and selected, and whether payment will be by salary or by fees per case treated, or how?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question. It does not arise out of the answer.

EAST AFRICA MANDATE.

Lord R. CECIL: 41.
asked the Prime Minister when the draft Mandate for East Africa will be laid upon the Table?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Immediately the Other Governments concerned have intimated their concurrence, which I hope will be very soon.

Lord R. CECIL: The promise was given quite unconditionally.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am aware of that, but there has been an important technical error in the original draft which had to be set right.

UNITED STATES.

Mr. SUGDEN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister if the United States of America have yet proposed any practical scheme to the British Government which can by any means be adapted to work in some kind of harmony with the accepted scheme of the League of Nations?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Before this is answered, may I ask whether, seeing that there has only lately been a change of Government in the United States of America and that there is nothing more important for the peace of the world than the promotion of the best Anglo-American understanding, it would not be tactful to wait for some time before raising this question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My answer is quite non-committal. It is in the negative.

INDUSTRIAL UNREST.

Lord R. CECIL: 42.
asked this Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a small Royal Commission to report upon the main causes of industrial unrest as shown in the recent disputes on the railways, in the coal trade, and in many other departments of British industry?

Sir H. FOREMAN: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has made any inquiries since the publication of the Report of the Committee on the Relations of Employers and Employed into the best and latest means of minimising the industrial troubles from which the nation is suffering?

The PRIME MINISTER: Some form of systematic enquiry into the industrial unrest may be desirable. The Government are considering the question, but I do not think the appointment of a Royal Commission would be the best means of eliciting information on this important subject.

Mr. M. STEVENS: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the inquiry the question of the basis of equitable wages, not only for one trade, but for the whole of the trades of the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: That would be much too wide an inquiry and very dangerous. The question of wages is much better settled between employer and workman. There was an informal inquiry of this kind during the War, and it was a very useful inquiry. The reports were of an admirable character, and there may be a good deal to be said for repeating that experiment. Both employers and workmen assisted the Government to find out what was really happening in the industrial world.

Sir H. FOREMAN: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is possible-to extend the functions and operation of the Whitley Councils so as to make them a greater factor in avoiding labour unrest?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to reply. There are at present 71 Joint Industrial Councils, covering 3½ millions of workpeople, in addition to other adequate conciliation machinery in certain highly organised trades, namely, cotton, engineering and shipbuilding, and the iron and steel trades. As regards an
extension of the functions of the Whitley Councils, these bodies are autonomous and can extend1 their functions on a voluntary basis in any way which seems expedient to them. If my hon. Friend contemplates an extension of the functions by the introduction of some form of statutory compulsion—for instance, in the enforcement of their decisions—I am afraid that the consensus of opinion is at present against him. I can assure him that these Whitley Councils are undoubtedly a very important factor in avoiding industrial unrest. Already during the past few weeks serious differences in relation to reduction in wages have been overcome by a number of these bodies.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed any conclusions as to how far these Whitley Councils in their increasing numbers do organise the employers and workmen together against the consumer in this country?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that they have been of the very greatest use?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I said so.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if any communication has been made by the British Government to America and to Japan to secure cooperation in a reduction of naval armaments and a cessation of competitive warship building?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to questions by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr Hurd) and the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) on the 24th ultimo.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the Government made any representations to the United States and Japan with regard to a cessation of warship building. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present expenditure on armaments in this country is inflicting a ruinous cost upon industry?

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree that the cost of armaments is very terrifying,
whether we look at the cost to individual nations or in the aggregate, but my hon. Friend knows you have to approach questions of this kind with a great deal o£ tact and judgment. If there is any attempt made to rush it I do not think the object we have in view is likely to be achieved.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRADE UNION MINOR OFFICIALS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the amount of preventable unemployment that is being caused by trade union minor officials or shop stewards interfering with the execution of work by men who do not, or who refuse to, belong to some particular trade union; that in Coventry an agreement that had been arrived at between the engineering trade and the Daimler Company had to be abandoned owing to the action of other trade union officials, and a large number of men kept out of employment; that a shop steward of the Hackney Borough Council's electricity department recently compelled a master-man electrician to desist from wiring some premises at Hackney because he did not belong to his own particular union, which action of the shop steward was confirmed by the borough electrical engineer; and, in view of the prevailing want of employment, what action does he propose to take?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. In the first case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, I understand that it was the officials of the union to which the workpeople belonged, who intervened. The second case, I am informed, is now the subject of legal proceedings.

BENEFIT, MILFORD HAVEN.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: (by Private-Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Out-of-Work Donation to a large number of unemployed workmen at Milford Haven was stopped a fortnight ago; that an appeal court to consider their claims sat on the 14th April, but no decision has yet been given; and whether, in view of the state of starvation to which these men and their dependants are being reduced, he can take any steps to expedite the decision on appeal?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware that payment has been suspended in a number of cases where fishermen at Milford Haven have claimed unemployment benefit and donation, on the grounds that the workmen have lost employment owing to a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. Test cases were submitted to a Court of Referees and the Court allowed benefit. The insurance officer has not accepted this decision, and in accordance with the provisions of the Act the cases are being referred to the umpire. All possible steps are being taken to expedite the final decision. I will let my hon. Friend know when it is taken.

CONSTANTINOPLE (GENDARMERIE).

Major GLYN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether there is any intention of the British officials ceasing to administer and command the Gendarmerie at Constantinople; if so, for what reason; and whether there is any intention of reducing our forces in Constantinople without taking other adequate steps to maintain British prestige?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no present intention of reducing the number of British officials concerned in the administration or command of the Gendarmerie. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Major GLYN: May Task whether it is or is not a fact that other Allied officers have recently replaced British officers in the command of the Gendarmerie?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would not like to answer that without notice.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXPENSES).

Major GLYN: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to any decision regarding the proposals of the Committee of the House set up to inquire into Members' expenses and methods of their reduction?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is still under consideration.

SCHOOLS, FIFE (MILITARY OCCUPATION).

Mr. KENNEDY: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the occupation of schools in the Buckhaven and Denbeath districts of Fifeshire by the military authorities; why the protest of the local education authority against this disturbance of the educational work of the district has been ignored; and why the schools are now being used for the billeting of soldiers in view of the fact that two large unoccupied buildings in the immediate vicinity, used for billeting during the perod of the War, are available?

Sir R. SANDERS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I have no information as to the statements contained in this question, but a report is being obtained from the local military authorities, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is received.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is it not possible to state when the troops can be removed?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am making inquiries about that.

Mr. KENNEDY: Has the Prime Minister considered the resolution submitted to him by the town council of Buckhaven protesting against the introduction of troops in this district, expressing an assurance that the local police, with the assistance of the local miners, are perfectly capable of maintaining order, and calling for the withdrawal of these troops?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only give the same answer to that as I gave to questions put with respect to similar cases in South Wales. If those who are responsible for law and order do not wish for the assistance of troops, naturally they would be withdrawn, but as long as they require their aid we are bound to send them there.

Mr. KENNEDY: May I ask if the troops in this case will be withdrawn on representations from the local authorities?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.

GREAT BRITAIN (FRENCH PRESS).

Mr. SUGDEN: 59.
asked the Prime Minister if representations have been made to the French Government of the criticism by French journals of British internal and allied policy, and what explanation has been furnished thereon?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Informal representations have been made, and I have reason to know that the attitude of a section of the French Press has from time to time occasioned anxiety and embarrassment to the French Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ASQUITH: Can the Prime Minister now inform the House what business will be taken next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday we shall take the Budget Statement and Financial Resolutions.
The business for Wednesday will be announced later.
Thursday will be Supply, either the Ministry of Health Vote, or there seems to be a desire that Ireland should be discussed. On this point I should like to ascertain through the usual channels what the views of hon. Members are on that subject.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

The Right Hon. STANLEY BALDWIN for the County of Worcester (Bewdley Division)—[on appointment as President of the Board of Trade].

Major HARRY BARNSTON for the County of Chester (Eddisbury Division)—[on appointment as Controller of the Household].

CORONERS (REMUNERATION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER'S MARRIAGE ACT (1907) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee 'of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Viscountess Astor; and had appointed in substitution: Major Sir Samuel Hill-Wood.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. Murchison and Mr. Shortt.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (in respect of the Captive Birds Shooting (Prohibition) Bill): Mr. Charles White, and had added him to the Committee (in respect of the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) (No. 3) Bill); and that they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (in respect of the
Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) (No. 3) Bill): Captain Wedgwood Benn, and had added him to the Committee (in respect of the Captive Birds Shooting (Prohibition) Bill).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Power given to the Select Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the Lords to report their observations from time to time.

First Report brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

LIVERPOOL MINERAL AND METAL STORAGE COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B) [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS PRESENTED.

EXERCISE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE BILL,

"to promote a wider exercise of the Parliamentary Franchise," presented by Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS (1918 TO 1920) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1920," presented by Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL) BILL,

"to relieve members of local authorities from disqualification for office by reason of the receipt of medical or surgical relief in cases of sudden or urgent necessity." presented by Mr. ORMSBY-GORE; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Walter Guinness, Mr. Betterton, and Major-General Sir John Davidson; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Samuel Doupe with Mary Doupe, his present wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes." [Doupe's Divorce Bill [Lords.]

Doupe's Divorce Bill [Lords]; read the First time; to be read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[SEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

AIR MINISTRY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £915,467 (including a Supplementary sum of £467), be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Air Ministry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Will you state, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, why this supplementary sum is being taken at the same time as the other Vote? Does not the Supplementary Estimate raise a separate question as to the position in the Cabinet of the Air Minister. Would it not be for the convenience of the House to take that Vote separately?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think this is the ordinary practice. The Supplementary Vote applies to the Secretariat of the Air Ministry, and I think it would be inconvenient if we did not take it with this Vote.

Captain W. BENN: May I ask if the point which my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) wishes to raise can be raised if the Votes be taken together?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will be able to bring in almost anything connected with the Air Ministry on this Vote.

4.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): In presenting this afternoon the Estimates for the Air Ministry it will be remembered that on 1st March the Committee was good enough to grant to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was then in charge of the Department, Vote A and Vote 1. This afternoon the latitude allowed on Vote 5, I hope, will not exclude the possibility of discussing the Supplementary Vote. Although a wide Debate may be
raised on this Vote, I hope the smaller Votes will also be obtained at this sitting. That would be a great advantage to the Ministry, and I hope the Committee will consider it before the end of the discussion. It does not seem to me that, being so lately appointed to the charge of the Air Ministry, it would be either necessary or proper for me to indulge in any speech which would cover general policy. The policy of the Air Ministry is one which I have inherited, and therefore the House will hardly expect from me anything particularly flamboyant or original, and therefore I think any speech from me on general policy can be left out. I will, however, give a short outline of the Vote presented to the House. I would also like to add that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be in attendance this afternoon, and will be available to have points of general policy put to him. Vote 5 deals with the overhead charges of the Ministry, and there is a decrease of £32,000. That is commendable, more particularly when it is realised that the Civil Service bonuses have had to be added this year. Apart from the fact that the overhead charges may seem to some to be rather high, I would like to point out that as the Department settles down these charges will be naturally reduced. The Government's conception of the Air Ministry may be described as one of economical expansion, because the time appears to be looming when the air forces may be actually employed in substitution for more expensive units of both the Army and the Navy. In this connection I would remind the House of the economical and successful performances of the Air Force in Somaliland, not so very many months ago. There was also another instance, which may have escaped the notice of the Committee, where the Air Force was successfully engaged in the Sinai Peninsula; and, again, in Mesopotamia at the present time. These references, I think, will go some way in supporting the contention of the Ministry that it may prove to be an economical substitution for other more expensive arms. Another big item in Vote 5 which requires some special reference is that for civil aviation headquarters. I think one should commence any discussion on this subject by pointing out that during the War the science
of aviation advanced 100 years, and certainly the force connected therewith increased a hundred-fold in the five years in which flying machines were engaged. The Air Ministry, I repeat, is responsible for the welfare of civil aviation, and that no other Department of the State has attached to it any similar responsibility. This responsibility of the Government for maintaining and retaining all the secrets of a science which the War developed, and preserving them for the benefit of the civil population till such a moment as they may be able to take over this method of transport for themselves, is one which puts this item in the Vote in a very special category.
Another large item peculiar to the Department is that for research, coupled with an expensive item referred to as "supply." Research includes such an infinite variety of scientific problems that it is too dangerous to run any risk of getting behind other nations. Therefore, although some may feel that the Vote is high, I think the Meteorological Department and all the subsidiary services which come under this head are not only a credit to the Ministry but to Great Britain as a whole. A fact which makes it difficult to show a decrease on this Vote, if not impossible, is that it has only been just lately transferred en bloc from the Ministry of Munitions to the Air Ministry. It is possible and probable that some reorganisation may take place which may result in some economy in this Department, but at the same time I think the Committee will appreciate that it may even prove a source of greater expenditure in the future. The progress of science is an incalculable factor, and in this particular service science is our closest friend.
Passing from Vote 5 to Vote 4, dealing with works and buildings, I would like to say that up till now the Air Force—not the Air Ministry itself, but the active units—have lived almost in tents and have not received from the country that proper housing accommodation by which we may obtain from them the best possible services. Bit by bit, and I hope at an economical rate of speed, permanent buildings worthy of the service are being erected. In this connection, I would like to mention the class of personnel which we hope to attract to the ranks of the Air Force. I will not say that they are any higher in
quality than those in other services, but they are certainly more technical. We have to do our utmost to attract to our standard highly-skilled recruits. Therefore, the items such as Halton, Cranwell, Milton, and one or two others demand special notice from the Committee. Halton has been frequently explained, and the salient facts in connection with the establishment are as follows: It is, as the Committee knows, the great technical training centre for boys. Boys between the ages of 15 and 16½ are enlisted and put through a three years' course of highly technical training. We hope, as soon as the accommodation is ready, to be able to pour into the ranks of the fully-grown personnel of the service at least 1,000 per annum. It is hardly necessary to mention that their service in the Force will send them back into civil life highly trained and active members of society. The building when completed will accommodate 3,000. This year we ask for £340,000. The relation between the money to be spent on the buildings themselves and the money spent during the War on the plant which we found at hand ready for the training of these boys is of interest and is not perhaps fully appreciated. During the War immense technical workshops of a most up-to-date and valuable character were erected here for war purposes. I find on reference that the cost of these and the site was certainly more than £1,000,000. Not to have availed ourselves of such opportunities and facilities would have left us open to the charge of being short-sighted and pursuing a cowardly policy. Cranwell, for which we are not asking so much to-day, is, of course, for the young cadets. The other services have got their similar establishments. Up till now the Air Force has had very little in the way of accommodation for this purpose. The cadets there at present number 120, but it must be borne in mind that we are also accommodating a lot of other boy mechanics under training, nearly 1,000 who cannot at present be housed at Halton.
Lest there should be a demand from some quarters that less should be spent on bricks and mortar, and more on other branches of the Service, I would mention that both Uxbridge and Milton need bringing to a better state of efficiency than at present, Uxbridge being the cen-
tral depot, the depository, so to speak, of the records and title deeds of the force, and Milton being one of the great store depots from where we draw part of our equipment. I feel certain that one other item will be questioned, and therefore I will go part of the way to meet the criticism now. There is a sum of money to be spent in Egypt. This is a subject which must be approached with caution, because the political situation there and the attendant policy of the Government are yet undecided. It is, however, possible to say that Egypt, geographically and automatically, will find itself the central flying depot of our Eastern activities. It has advantages which, of course, those who have studied the subject will see at a glance. We are asking the House this afternoon to grant £163,000, and the major portion of it is being devoted to the provision of married quarters for the personnel out there. I feel that if the accommodation which they at present occupy were seen by hon. Members there would be a Vote of censure moved on the Ministry. Extra care must be taken of personnel in a very hot climate, and therefore, if I can reassure the Committee that the Vote which it is asked to grant this afternoon will be most economical, and will be only devoted to the purpose which I have named until the Government policy for the whole of that area is decided, I may perhaps persuade it to pass the Vote without very long discussion.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Geneleman say why this canal zone has been settled on as the place for this accommodation? Are there military reasons?

Captain GUEST: The subject so quickly leads to that question that I have prepared a reply.

Captain BENN: It will do when you come to it.

Captain GUEST: I will give it the Committee a little later in the Debate. Vote 8 is in the third place in size and substance. It is a Vote in which a great many of us are deeply interested and exercises the minds of nearly all hon. Members. It is the Vote for Civil Aviation. The Vote is shown in two places, that is to say, the Headquarters Staff, which includes the staff of the Meteoro-
logical Department, appears in Vote 5, and amounts to £120,000, while in Vote 8 appears the sum of £880,000. The first question that will be asked in connection with this Vote will be how it is when you had £1,000,000 last year that an economy of over £400,000 was effected, and how it is that this year it is proposed to spend that money. If the Committee can be satisfied on these points, I feel that it will view the subject in a better light. The money was not spent last year—incidentally it is a great credit to the Controller-General of Civil Aviation that he effected the economy—chiefly because of the want of interest, so far as one can judge, which the general public took in civil aviation. It was therefore decided that the more elaborate plans to build civil flying centres should be postponed until there were indications of a greater response. A very considerable economy was thus effected. This year, therefore, there is ground to make up, and the money will be spent somewhat in the following way. I say "somewhat in the following way" deliberately, in order to remind the Committee that on this occasion the Treasury is granting a certain amount of latitude in the expenditure of this money. Last year it was not enough. It would have been much better if wider latitude had been allowed. This year we have been granted greater latitude. After deducting the sum allotted for the headquarters staff of the Meteorological Department, a sum of £100,000 goes to upkeep and records work generally. The Meteorological Office has been really collected from all the different branches where it has resided in a distributed form, and it is now so efficiently centralised that it is being appealed to by many branches of industrial life for information and forecasts, and I think so far has shown itself well able to meet the requirements made upon it.
The next item is that a sum of £60,000 has been allocated for the encouragement of Civil Aerial Transport Companies. At a later stage I will bring to the notice of the Committee in detail the agreement which has been arrived at. The next figure yet unallotted is a quarter of a million odd. It will be remembered that the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the last minute when he was in control of this Department considered this sum could be much better used in assisting heavier-than-air enterprises
than in keeping an airship fleet in commission. That is a subject which will have to be gone into at greater length, and I shall prefer to hear what hon. Members interested desire to say upon it before dealing with it The remainder of the money to be accounted for is dealt with under four or five heads. The first is expenditure for aircraft, and here I must ask the Committee to appreciate the fact that the class of craft suitable for commercial and passenger purposes is very different from that constructed for Service purposes, and therefore the two classes of supply of aircraft must not be mixed up. Attached to this are naturally officials, and there is therefore an item for salaries and wages. The item for technical equipment is somewhat the same as that which is provided for the Service. The Controller-General has also to keep in order his buildings, and at the same time to meet the demands of the civil population on this subject. To steer an exact course is extremely difficult. If civil flying is delayed through want of facilities which the Government had promised to supply, the Government will be blamed. Equally, if the Government makes too liberal preparations which are not taken advantage of by the public, then it would seem that they are going too fast. To maintain a creditable balance between these two extremes is difficult, and we must maintain it as best it can be.
Passing to the question of cross-Channel flights, an agreement is in course of being signed, and I think it is sufficiently near settlement for me to read to the Committee an outline of its terms. Its operation is limited to seven months, which will give us a very fair opportunity of seeing what response we get from the public. There is to be one machine flown in each direction each day. There are two companies involved who are working side by side and in close collaboration. The Air Council guarantee a clear profit of 10 per cent. to each firm on gross receipts, excluding subsidies, obtained for the carriage of passengers, goods, and mails, any excess to be returned to the Air Ministry. A payment on account is made of £75 for each single flight, treated on a schedule basis, and it is provided that the maximum subsidy payable shall not exceed £25,000 to each firm for this period of seven months. That is the simplest way in
which I can condense the agreement, but in order to assist the House further, I have taken out a hypothetical illustration which, with the permission of hon. Members, I will read. I am taking imaginary figures, and therefore the calculation must be treated as an illustration only. On the credit side of the company's account book for a month, I have reckoned 24 as the number of flights. That would place on the credit side £1,200, allowing for an average of £50 taken as fares on each flight. On the same side of the account also I place 24 times £75, the amount of the payment on account for each flight, making a sum of £1,800. On the debit side of the account, I place the operating cost, which I will presume at £150 per flight, giving a total of £3,600. The balance sheet therefore stands as follows. On the credit side, £1,200 for fares and £1,800 for payment on account. On the other side, operating costs £3,600, and if you deduct from that sum the amount taken for fares to which is to be added 10 per cent. you get a figure of £2,520. As, however, £1,800 has already been advanced to the company as shown on the credit side of the account, you will find that the final payment will be £720 for the month. I thought it simplest to put it in this form, but it must be remembered that the first month will be the most expensive, and that the figures, hypothetical as they are in this case, may be expected to show a reduction in later months. In order to be sure that the service could be run for the seven months without exceeding the total amount of the subsidy which the Ministry are prepared to give, I have multiplied the figures by 7, and this is the result. On the credit side, £8,400 for fares, and £12,600 for payments on account. On the other side, the operating cost will cost £25,200, and when you make the same calculation, adding 10 per cent. on the gross profits, you will find that the total subsidy is £17,640, and when you subtract from that the amount already advanced it will be seen that the final payment will be £5,040. It is, of course, really hiring companies to run the service for us, but with a strong inducement to them to try and make a profit for themselves. The success so far has been considerable. We started in 1919 by having a cross-channel business four times as successful
as any other country. But it was put out of business by the French companies who received from their Government such subsidies as enabled them to completely undercut us. Apart from that, since we have restarted this service, we have carried an average of over seven persons per flight, while the French company have only, so far, in the same period, carried three persons per flight. I hardly think it requires more than our natural energy and enterprise to overcome the difficulties of this somewhat severe competition.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are the fares the same?

Captain GUEST: The French subsidy has enabled the French companies to charge only £5 a flight, but if this country wishes to subsidise to the same extent as the French Government are doing, we could, of course, produce as cheap a national service. But the policy of the Government has been to rely more upon civil assistance and private enterprise. The Committee would like to know the personnel of the Committee which has worked unceasingly in assisting us to arrive at this satisfactory position. The chairmanship was placed in the hands of Lord Londonderry who was assisted by the Controller-General of Civil Aviation, and by Sir James Stevenson.

Major C. LOWTHER: Is there any Clause in the Agreement giving the Ministry a right to supervise the efficient manning of the company's fleet?

Captain GUEST: I do not think that at present there is, but that is a point I will look into with the view of giving the hon. Member a definite reply. I come next to Vote 9, which is divided into experimental services and supply. The chief experimental stations are known to the Committee, but in regard to Farn-borough it should be borne in mind that while it does an immense amount of experimental work it must not be considered to be a production Department, the Ministry's policy on that being to do as little as possible for itself so that the trade should not feel that they are being excluded from the Government orders. There is a big amount in this Vote under the head of "Cardington." Here for some months past we have been completing a great airship, R. 38, for America, and I hope it will be completed
in a very few months. On the supply side of this Vote, the total of which is £817,000, which covers engines, armaments and every other form of experimental material. There is also another Department attached to this Vote which is worthy of notice. It involves the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, but is in the form, almost, of an insurance. It is the Department which deals with the inspection of all materials used in the construction of aircraft. The highest tests have to be applied to all parts used in the Service. It is only by giving the nation a feeling that this is not only a special Department, but receives constant and minute care, that we can create confidence in the Service, both for those in it and for the public at large. An amount for building also comes under this Vote, in connection with Farn-borough, Cardington and Martlesham, where the trials of engines take place both in the air and on land. There is also an item for liquidation of war liabilities, for which, as the Committee knows, we are not responsible, and which will be non-recurrent. Of the remaining Votes, Vote 2 is heavy, but it is practically automatic in the way in which it follows on Vote 1. It relates to quartering, non-technical stores, food, and general supplies for the Force already voted under Votes A and 1. It includes a big item for transport, but the Committee will, of course, understand that that is not road transport in the ordinary sense of mechanical transport. It is for the transport of the units of the force from one part of the world to another upon their duties, and covers both land and sea transport.

Captain W. BENN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say a word as to the great increase in the rations?

Captain GUEST: Provisions, quartering, light, fuel and transport form the backbone of this Vote. Vote 3, which is also a big Vote, relates to technical and warlike stores, and Vote 6 is for miscellaneous services. Vote 7 is for non-effective services which must inevitably be paid under regulations, such as retirement on half-pay and pension lists—up to now small, but bound to increase up to a certain point in the life of the Ministry, after which they will become normal, and the Committee will be able to make an easy annual calculation. The War Office and the Admiralty have reached a condition
of normality in regard to these services, and their Votes on this head, therefore, pass automatically through the House of Commons. As I said at the beginning, although the policy is inherited, yet it is ever-changing. Almost at once the Ministry will be forced to take decisions in connection with civil aviation, in regard to heavier-than-air flying and as to what is to be the fate of the great airships upon which this country has spent so much. Not only is the policy changing, but revolutions are taking place and surprises are occurring in all directions of scientific research as they affect the service. Yet I think one may claim that the Ministry is surviving its infantile diseases, and is getting settled down. Its chief officers and officials have now been continuously in their present positions for a long enough period to enable a feeling of stability to circulate down to the lower ranks. The speck in the sky is beginning to cast its shadow. One of the most hopeful signs is the economy which it appears to be able to bring to this war-worn and rather tired country of taxpayers; and it has another and peculiar function, which brings with it, perhaps, other hopes. It knows no frontiers and it ignores all distances. It is, therefore, able to make friends everywhere, and I hope that the Ministry will succeed in making such friends.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure that the whole Committee will agree in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion to the office which he now holds of Secretary of State for Air. It is an office of very high importance, and I should like to say at once that I regret that it is not a little more important than it seems to be under my right hon. Friend, and that he has not been given a seat in the Cabinet. I hope, as I am sure we all hope, that it will not be very long before he takes that position in the Cabinet which the Secretary of State for Air ought to have, and must have if the Air is to be properly represented.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is laid down in the Act.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, it was arranged that the Secretary of State for Air should be a Member of the Cabinet and should receive a salary of £5,000. I am not going to discuss the question of salary; if my right hon. Friend is willing
to accept a lower one in these economical days we congratulate him; but, as he will have to stand up rather strongly against both the Army and the Navy for the Air Service, I hope he will have full access to the Cabinet, and will be able to put the views of the Air Service strongly before the powers that really rule in this country. I cannot help regretting that there are so few hon. Members present this afternoon. When one thinks of the work that was done by the Air Service during the War, when one realises the tremendous hardships and the wonderful service of those gallant heroes from 1914 onwards, and when one realises how full the House was when we had Debates during Zeppelin raids on Great Britain, and discussed whether we were properly protected or not, one cannot help regretting that, now that the War is over, the interest in the Air Service seems to have fluttered down, and we have now, as on the last occasion, just a mere handful of hon. Members present to discuss the Air Vote. That, however, does not indicate that interest in the Air has lapsed throughout the country. If we are to have military and civil aviation—and I think the Committee agrees that we ought to have it—it is just as important to-day as it was in 1914. My right hon. Friend has said that the developments which took place during the War were the developments of 100 years in 4½ years, and I think it is quite possible that during the next 4½ years, if he and his officers devote themselves to it, the developments may again be the developments of 100 years in the same time.
I am not going to follow my right hon. Friend through the whole of his statement, and I am not in any sense desirous of being a keen critic of the Air Service at the present moment. I am neither going to ask him to spend more money or less money, but only, on one or two points, to allot his money a little differently. The War having been over for two years, we are entitled to go back to the pre-War condition in discussing these Estimates, and I would ask my right hon. Friend—and this applies also to the Army and Navy—to realise that the policy of secrecy adopted during the War cannot be permitted any longer in this country. The House of Commons is entitled to-day to ask exactly the same questions with regard to the Army, Navy,
and Air Services, and to have exactly the same information, as in 1914. We are just as responsible to-day for seeing that there is adequate preparation in regard to military aviation as we were in 1912, 1913, and 1914. Therefore, I am sure my right hon. Friend will not feel, if I ask any questions, that he is entitled to give the well-known answer which we always had during the War, that, owing to the War, it was impossible to give any information.
I see that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not yet returned, and therefore I will leave the question of Egypt for the moment, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman may come back shortly. With regard to civil aviation, the particulars given in my right hon. Friend's statement are satisfactory as far as they go, but they are very poor indeed. Two years after the conclusion of the War, and after the wonderful function that was prophesied for civil aviation in regard to all parts of the Air Service, we appear to be able to run one machine each day from London to Paris. There are none, I understand, running to any other parts of the world; there is only that one paltry service. I assume that the companies are satisfied with the agreement, and therefore I do not propose to criticise the method of paying the subsidy. My right hon. Friend tried to explain it, and I tried to understand it, but I am not sure that he has not left me rather fogged in that Chinese puzzle of hypothetical figures which he gave us. I assume that these two companies are satisfied that they are being adequately remunerated for running this trial service for the next seven months, but that will not quite do for the future. We cannot leave the civil aviation of the world to France. France is spending, as we know, about £1,000,000 a year on civil aviation, and they are providing every kind of facility over and above the subsidy. They are giving all kinds of facilities to their pilots for learning and practising on Government machines, with the free use of petrol on certain days of the week in Government aerodromes. I do not gather from my right hon. Friend that anything of that kind is being done here. We are simply going to give this £60,000 in seven months. I gratefully say that it is something, but civil aviation cannot be kept alive on one service per
day between London and Paris, carrying, as I think my right hon. Friend said, seven passengers each way. If that is all that can be done there is an end of civil aviation. It is no good spending something like £1,000,000 a year on meteorology, on a huge headquarters staff, on salaries and so forth, if it is only going to run this one service of seven passengers a day between here and Paris. A much greater effort must be made.
I understood my right hon. Friend to say that this is merely a temporary suggestion, and I should like to ask whether he is preparing his plans for the future, after the expiration of this seven-months contract. We have heard of suggestions as to the formation of some kind of national company for the purpose of taking over civil aviation, receiving large subsidies from the Government, who would maintain a kind of controlling interest in the company. I want to warn my right hon. Friend, in order that he may not say that I am unduly critical later if he does anything of the kind. I strongly hope that he will not be beguiled into anything of that sort. If we have only one company, subsidised by the Government, there will be an end of free competition. This one company would take over all the civil aviation that there might be, and would be the only company that could give orders to manufacturers throughout the country. They would, quite naturally, gradually become associated with one particular firm of manufacturers. It is not necessary to give any names, but if a large firm, whom we may call A.B., got a controlling interest, as it would pay them to do, in this company, all the orders for civil aviation would go to A.B., and the other firms would quickly die of inanition. The secret of maintaining civil aviation with any real power in this country is to maintain centres of manufacture. They must be maintained, not merely for civil aviation, but for military purpose as well. We must maintain as many as we possibly can of centres of aeroplane manufacture, and, more particularly, of engine manufacture. You can make an aeroplane fairly rapidly, but a new engine cannot be made without months, and perhaps years, of experiment and testing. Hon. Members know that all through the War the question of horsepower of engines as between Germany and ourselves arose from month to month
and from year to year. At one time Germany got ahead because she produced an engine superior in horse-power to ours. Then we got ahead, because we produced an engine better than the Germans, and then they got ahead. It all depended upon the horse-power and the finish and the ability of the engine makers and the engines they turned out. So if we are to maintain not merely our civil, but our military aviation in future, we must have help given in the way of orders to those firms who are not only building machines, but introducing newer, more powerful, and ever more powerful engines. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what has been done in that respect. Civil aviation has been spoken of by the heads of the Air Service as the reserve for military aviation. Not merely what is my right hon. Friend doing in regard to the £60,000 he is spending on subsidies, but what is he doing in regard to providing outlets for the aeroplane and engine manufacturers? There have already been made four or five new commercial types of aeroplanes. Has he given any orders for them? Is there any consistent policy? I do not mean has he given a sporadic order for one or two machines. That is no good for anybody. Is he prepared to lay down a policy for six months or 12 months ahead? Is he prepared to say to the manufacturers, "Take an order for two machines to be delivered in six months, two more of the same type to be delivered in 12 months, and two more in 18 months?" That would enable them to keep at least a small staff of engineers, designers, draughtsmen, foremen, and workmen going. At all events, the shops would not be broken up, as they have in many cases been broken up since the Armistice.

Sir F. BANBURY: What would be done with those aeroplanes when the Government bought them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The object, of course, is to maintain civil aviation and to connect this country with foreign countries. Supposing the Government were to give an order for the areoplanes I have suggested, they would then be in a position to release these machines to civil companies, which the Government by the present policy of the House is going to subsidise. The manufacturers would know that there would be an output of a very moderate quantity of their machines.
The civil companies would know that without looking ahead, as they are bound to do—you cannot go and buy an aeroplane like you can buy a new top hat; you have to give an order beforehand—

Sir F. BANBURY: They are very difficult to get cheap.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Top hats or aeroplanes?

Sir F. BANBURY: Both.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure it is only a very wealthy man, like my right hon. Friend, who can constantly wear a top hat in the House. I wonder he does not wear the brim out more than he does. But, quite seriously, that is a possible way, that you give these orders to ensure continuity of manufacture, and then that the companies who are running these services may realise that they can go to the Air Ministry and hire from them some of these new machines so as to carry, out a service. I hope my right hon. Friend will strain every possible nerve not to let civil aviation go by the Board. I am not going to say it is going to be a gigantic success, but after all the Air Service did during the War, and in order that we may maintain a reserve of pilots for future military purposes if necessary, my right hon. Friend should do his very utmost to maintain civil aviation, and to see that it keeps on the same level with the French service.
I come to the airship question, with which my right hon. Friend dealt very lightly, saying he would answer any point that any of us might make. There again I am in a difficulty. He has provided in his Estimate for civil aviation £250,000 to be dedicated to airships. But I understand the Secretary of State for the Colonies decided that airships should be done away with. He said he had come to the conclusion that we could no longer maintain our airships and that they were to be given away—the ships, ground equipment, and all the necessary spares connected with them—to anyone who would take them and maintain them as A service. I do not suppose for a moment he can tell us that anyone is prepared to take this vast equipment which the Secretary of State is prepared to hand over. I believe the value of the stuff that is to be handed over to anyone who chooses to take it is something between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000. We have
some good airships. Since I spoke last I have been to Pulham in order to see the new airship which has just been made for the Government. We have there two very fine Zeppelin machines which the Germans have handed over since the War. We have a large supply of the German Maybach engine, which is quite as good and in some respects better than anything we can do. We have our own R 33, an excellent machine, and R 36, a brand new machine which was delivered about a month ago. It can be seen flying at its mooring mast, a ship about the size of St. James's Street attached by the nose to a gigantic mast of steel spars. There it is ready and waiting for use, and that, I suppose, is going to be included, having cost probably £400,000, in the goods my right hon. Friend is prepared to hand over to anyone with a pound of tea who will take it.
I do not want to mention any officer's name, nor would it be right for me to do so, but the whole feeling of the Airship Department at Pulham, officers and men, is one of despair that these things should be done away with after all the work and all the experiments which Great Britain made during the War to cope with the German Zeppelin. Germany, which was a pretty shrewd country in regard to aviation, still believes in airships. She has not come to the conclusion that Count Zeppelin was wrong and that airships are no use, nor do I think our own Admiralty takes that view. They only came to the conclusion, quite reluctantly, that they would give up airships because my right hon. Friend said either they could not afford the money for airships or they could not afford to supply the Admiralty with the necessary aeroplanes they wanted. If it comes to a choice between the two and we cannot have both, we should prefer to go on with our aeroplanes. There is no word at all from the Admiralty that airships were not important during the War, there is no word that they were not important at Jutland, and we know quite well that the raid on Scarborough was made possible simply because one of their giant airships right up in the sky was able to wireless to the cruisers that there was no British fleet in the offing and they could safely get into Scarborough and attack, as they did. This wonderful new machine
is able to fly to Egypt from here with a non-stop run in two and a half days. It can fly on, if there is a mooring mast in Egypt, from there to India in another two and a half days. That brings India within five days' touch of Great Britain for mail purposes and for special passengers who want to go very rapidly to that country. We can almost, I believe, taking two passengers, make a non-stop flight from here to Japan in about six days. Of course, no aeroplane in the world could do that. An aeroplane cannot possibly fly more than 1,000 miles in a non-stop flight, but this machine could do that, and carry a crew and passengers numbering 50 people, with the utmost comfort. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he has been to Pulham.

Captain GUEST: I have not had time.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I implore him to go. He is not bound to carry out the views of the Colonial Secretary. Let him stand on his own feet. He is now a full-blown Secretary of State. When he spoke before he was merely the mouthpiece of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He is entitled to form his own opinion, and I implore him to go down and see what we have got, and consider for himself whether the whole of the experiments which have been made in eight years, the whole of the personnel that has been built up, and all these wonderful machines, are to be scrapped merely because he cannot provide out of this fund of £18,000,000 £250,000 a year for a couple more years. That is all that is needed. He said on 22nd March that if we were to run an airship service we should have to have so many airships running day by day between here and Paris. That is not what I asked. I do not want him to run an airship service. We have got to a point where we are on the verge of being able to decide whether airships are going to be a real success or not. If at the end of another two years, or even Another year, he is able to say, "I have gone into the matter thoroughly, I have had the most exhaustive tests"—of course if he can find helium gas there is no doubt whatever about the future of airships. If we can get non-inflammable gas the military future of airships is absolutely assured. That gas has been found in the United States and in small quantities in
Canada. What a horrible thing it would be for my right hon. Friend if he scrapped all our airships and in a year or two a supply of helium gas were found in any other country and some possible enemy—I will not mention any names—which had had the courage to go forward in regard to airships was able to send fleets of airships over this country. If my right hon. Friend comes to us at the end of two years and says: "I have investigated it thoroughly and my advisers agree that we cannot use them either from the military, the naval or the commercial standpoint," well and good. But I ask him to go and use his own brains and intellect and see whether there is not something worth keeping in the wonderful airship station at Pulham and then go on to the other station at Howden. I cannot believe that out of an Estimate of £80,000,000, of which £3,500,000 is to be spent on bricks and mortar, he cannot economise to the tune of £250,000, so as to save money for these airships.

Mr. LINDSAY: Has the hon. Baronet any information as to what weight of mails the R36 could carry?

5.0 P. M.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I believe 30 or 40 tons. It could, I believe, carry the whole of the mails between here and Egypt, and a great proportion between here and India as well. As to the mode in which I suggest my right hon. Friend could find the money, we find that at Halton Barracks he is establishing this boys' training college. There are now 1,400 boys, and there will be 3,000 when it is completed. It will cost very nearly £2,000,000, including a hospital. The Estimates are always exceeded when there are bricks and mortar. Very nearly £2,000,000 for a boys' training college seems a very large sum of money. I have not been to Halton, but I should think we might save a little money on that. I am not complaining. I daresay hon. Members have seen articles in some of the newspapers about extravagance at Halton, and about the beautiful accommodation provided in Baron Rothschild's house for officers. Let the officers have everything possible to make life pleasant, but do see whether you cannot postpone a little, especially in these very expensive days, when you cannot get buildings done at a reasonable price. Let it wait
for a couple of years until the builders, if I may say so, come to their senses, and the trade unions allow more men to take part in building.
I turn for a moment from the civil side to the military side, upon which my right hon. Friend has hardly touched, and, after all, only £1,000,000 is provided for civil aviation and £17,500,000 for military aviation. What are you going to get for that? We are entitled to know. It may be said in reply that we have got the League of Nations and we need not trouble about military aviation. If that is the case, do not spend £17,500,000 on military aviation; but if we do spend that sum, let us see that we get something really worth having. Those Members who have been to military aviation stations during the last year will, I am afraid, have come to the conclusion that they are rather like this House at the present moment—they do not show very much interest in aviation I was at Martlesham Heath a few weeks ago. You never see any aeroplanes flying about, and there does not seem any of the keenness there was in 1913 and the early part of 1914. We do not see, as we used to see, military pilots practising all over the country. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what squadrons we have got, and what they are, whether bombing squadrons and scout squadrons, and if we have got ample supplies of the latest engines? Are we doing everything in the way of experimenting with the latest types of engine? You may say that America has far less need of military aviation than we have. Yet America realises up to the hilt that aviation will be more important in any future war than it was in the last War. If I may quote the Report to Congress this year with regard to aviation, it contains this remarkable sentence:
That any future war will inevitably open with great aerial activity in advance of contact either upon land or sea, and that victory cannot but incline to that belligerent able, first to achieve, and later to maintain, its supremacy in the air.
It goes on to point out that no sudden creation of aerial equipment to meet a national emergency is possible. You must equip during peace time to be ready in war time. Air Marshal Trenchard, the, head of our military aviation, said at the Air Conference:
That is the American view. I do not think any of us who have had experience of
aviation during the War will be inclined to quarrel with these conclusions.
As the head of our military aviation agrees with America, I would ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees, and what he is doing? In America, they are converting 1,000 of the best 1918 machines, D.H.4, into a new type of machine with all the modern improvements. Practically every machine that was used prior to the Armistice is now obsolete. Practically all war machines are to-day obsolete and have been wiped out by improvements made since 1918. That work on these 1,000 machines has been divided amongst six factories, in order to keep those factories going, so that they may be ready at any time of stress. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will agree that the best thing is to be ready and amply prepared before war takes place. Then they are putting a new driving control on to 3,000 Liberty engines. They deal with large figures in America. They are having 500 electric starters. They are experimenting with an all-metal plane, I think, instead of a wood plane, which has been so frequently a source of danger to our pilots. They have a new and wonderful type of 3-seater triplane carrying two 12-cylinder Liberty engines and eight machine-guns. The crew and engine are protected by armour, and they have ordered 10 as an experiment. They have ordered 40 new two-seater observation planes. They have given out contracts for 50 each of two types of scout machines and 20 short distance bombers. I cannot find that we have done anything of the kind. I am reading now from the last report to Congress of the head of the American Aviation Department. If that is so—and there is no reason to doubt these facts—I think this Committee is entitled to know what my right hon. Friend is doing in this matter. At all events, if America can afford to make these statements public, we are far more vulnerable than America with regard to attack from the air, and I ask my right hon. Friend, even if he does not want to give us exact details, to give us an assurance, for I say it with all humility, but quite frankly, that we shall hold him responsible, as head of the Air Department, if he does not give figures to this Committee and the country, that the arrangements he is making are such that,
in the event of any other war intervening, England shall not be caught napping, but shall be in as good a position as any foreign country, and, not merely in civil aviation, but in military aviation as well, we shall have value for the £18,000,000 to be spent.

Mr. RARER: I should like, first of all, to be allowed to associate myself with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and congratulate my right hon. Friend opposite on his appointment to the very important and responsible position to which his distinguished career justifies his being appointed. I have risen, not with any idea of attacking the Air Ministry, but because I wish to draw attention to some points which I suggest require very careful consideration. The hon. Member who has just sat down said he in no way condemned the amount which is being voted, and I thoroughly agree with him; but, at the same time, I do think it is most essential that we should obtain the best possible value for the money, and we should see, therefore, that it is allocated in the proper and best direction. Reference was made by the Secretary of State for Air to the splendid work which was carried on by the Air Force during the War, but it is equally important that the nation should realise that in the event of a future war the Air Service will again be the most important factor in protecting this country from attack from the air, and also ensuring food supplies against submarine attacks. For the same reason we have to spend all the money we possible can; in fact, my only regret—it is perhaps because I am an enthusiast—is that the financial state of the country does not justify our voting more money for this purpose. We should spend as much as possible on research work, to get the best possible machines and equipment and the best trained men, so that in the event of war we should have the best nucleus to reform a large air service.
I should be interested to know whether the Secretary of State for Air is being influenced—I sincerely hope he is not—by a certain section of people in this country who possess the idea—to my mind quite an erroneous one—that civil pilots and civil machines are in any way interchangeable for war pilots and war machines. Take, first of all, the pilots.
The ordinary pilot who to-day flies a machine from London to Paris—of course, there are exceptions—is no more fitted, either temperamentally or by his experience, for long-range reconaissance machines and bombing machines, than an engine driver is to drive a tank, and, so far as machines are interchangeable, it is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that machines used to-day for carrying passengers and goods could in any way be used for carying bombs or making attacks. At the same time, I quite realise, as I am sure everyone realises, that these machines would be useful to carry foodstuffs behind the lines or to carry the staff about. The Secretary of State referred to the camp at Halton. It is most necessary that we should have this training ground. In the same way that present machines used for civil purposes would be quite unsuitable for war purposes, I suggest it would be quite wrong to entertain the idea that if war broke out we could go to the nearest garage or some motor school and get men who have the necessary experience. I suggest that the air mechanics necessarily require very special training, and it cannot possibly be obtained unless they are educated when young at a suitable school.
I would like to draw attention to one or two special points in the different Votes. In Vote 1 there is an item for pay of personnel, which discloses that there are 2,165 officers, of whom 1,136 are flying or observer officers. If we deduct from that number the administrative officers and store officers, I suggest we shall not have more pilots and observers than will provide for 250 active machines. That is quite insufficient. Again, it only provides for 24,465 other ranks. I presume this is only regarded as a nucleus. Under the same Vote there is an item, "Hard Lying Money, £500." I do not know whether that refers to some Department of propaganda or information. I understand from my naval friends that in the Navy men are paid a certain extra amount when they are in certain difficult jobs. All I can say is, that if we are going to pay pilots and observers special amounts when on difficult work, it seems that £500 will hardly meet the case. Then there is an item, "Crew Pay, £18,100." I should be very glad if the Secretary of State would give an explana-
tion of what that is for. On the same Vote there is an item of £250 for "Interpreter and Schoolmaster Allowances." I understand this is an addition to the ordinary Air Force pay, but I presume it covers more than one warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, and, if that is so, it cannot be very much of a help.
We come to a very important matter on the same Vote—Territorial Air Force. I seriously ask the Secretary of State whether this matter cannot be reconsidered. The Territorial Force is usually understood to refer to the Army. It is quite an unsuitable term to apply to the Air Force, and I suggest that this name be changed to the Royal Air Force Territorial Reserve, which, besides being a most suitable name, appears to constitute a very easy combination of letters. For this Territorial Air Force an amount of —20,000 is to be allowed. That is absolutely insufficient if anything really material is to be done this year. I would like to support what was said by my hon. Friend who referred to what I think is a most excellent system, which is being adopted in France by which, if my information is correct, the French Reserve pilot officers are allowed to fly French Government machines for joy-riding, if they like, without any charge attaching to themselves. I understand that there are a large number of machines which are specially ear-marked for this purpose, and that these machines are looked after by certain aviation firms for which purpose, and the cost of upkeep, they are paid a certain amount by the French Government. In addition, the firms are allowed a certain amount of petrol and oil. I hope the Secretary of State will give that matter his careful and sympathetic consideration.
On the same Vote, Section F.2, there is an item of £900,000 for 4,207 civilian employés, which I understand is entirely exclusive of the Land and Buildings Vote. That is a large number of civilian employés, but I suppose the reply will be, and if so it will be perfectly satisfactory to me, that it is much better to have a large number of civilian employés who can be engaged or dismissed at any moment rather than to keep a large number of service men who would have to be kept on permanently. I would, however, like to have a reply on that point. On Vote 2 there is an item of £190,000 for hire of buildings. I should
like to ask the Secretary of State what buildings are being hired for this enormous sum. There is also a sum for kit allowance, which is a point to which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his personal and very careful consideration, because I am told it is causing the greatest dissatisfaction in the Air Force. According to my information the cadets in the Army at Sandhurst are given £240 kit allowance, and I am told that the allowance of £50 to officers in the Air Force is quite inadequate. On Vote 3, Section J, we have an item of £46,250 for hangars, compared with £11,700 last year. I should like to ask whether these are consumable stores or permanent buildings, and in any case why they do not appear under the Land and Buildings Vote. On this same Vote there is a decrease of £6,500 for petrol and oil. I hope that this does not mean that the Air Force are carrying on less flying. Possibly the explanation is that they had large stocks in hand and that now as it is cheaper they obtain larger quantities for a smaller sum. I should like to refer to what strikes me as the most unbusinesslike method which is being conducted at the central aerodrome at Croydon. I went there a little time ago, and to my amazement I found that they were still filling tanks by the old-fashioned method of pouring from 2-gallon petrol tins. Surely to goodness, when many of the ordinary motor garages all over the country are already equipped with a roadside tank with pumps for filling motor cars, tanks with hose pipes for filling machines could be provided at Croydon. In the long run this would not only be quicker but it would be a much more economical method.
On Vote 3, Section M, and this is a very important item, I find a sum of £700,000 for War liabilities, including rewards to inventors. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of the fact that one of the recent fantastic awards that was made—I say fantastic, and I think all persons connected with the air will agree with me—was an award of £35,000 given to the manufacturer of a 4-engine bi-plane, a bi-plane which I venture to say never flew, 'and which was a very bad imitation of a pre-War Russian Sikorski. Not only did this bi-plane never fly, but I venture to say that the four engines used in the machine were pre-
sented either by the Ministry of Munitions, or the War Office, or some other Government Department. If I am not wrongly advised I understand that there is a claim being made against the Department for £170,000 by some worthy individual who claims to have invented the principle of fixing a gun-pit in the back of a large machine. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) will be the first to say that such an idea was self-evident, and it is perfectly stupid for anyone to claim £170,000 for such a so-called invention. I mention these points because I hope that this £700,000, or part of it, is not going to be thrown away on such fantastic claims as those to which I have referred.
On Vote 4, for Works, Buildings and Lands, there is an Estimate of £3,018,000. Under Sub-Head B I find that it is proposed to spend £35,000 at Milton to which the Secretary of State referred in his opening speech. I do not understand why on earth it is proposed to spend £35,000 for housing civilian subordinates at Milton. We were told that Milton is to he used as a stores, but I suggest that there are stores already in existence at Kidbrooke, which might easily be used and might easily contain all the stores necessary for the present Air Force. If it should be necessary to keep a certain number of civilian subordinates at Milton they could be very properly housed in the disused store sheds, without any necessity for spending a further £35,000. It is unnecessary to run both Kidbrook and Milton. A sum of £50,000 is allocated for married officers' quarters. Just as the question of kit allowance is causing great dissatisfaction in the Flying Corps, equally so is the question of married officers' quarters. I think I am right when I say that the Lands and Buildings Department of the Air Ministry, which is the most expensive, is at the same time the most unsatisfactory. I hope the Secretary of State will be. good enough to give his early attention to the question of married officers' quarters.
On Vote 5 there is an estimate of £915,000 for pay and allowances, which we were informed also includes the pay of the staff officers in the Civil Aviation Department. I think these sums are on rather a modest scale, especially as regards the junior officers. I cannot understand how they are supposed to provide
any proper method of living on their pay, and if possible it ought to be increased. On Vote 8, reference was made by my hon. Friend to the money being spent in Egypt. There are three items to which I will refer, namely, levelling site of aerodrome at Malta, £13,000; air lights in Egypt, £15,000; and a mooring mast in Egypt, £22,000. Why are these charged to civil aviation? Surely these are of far greater importance from the military point of view. In regard to the mooring mast in Egypt, if this airship is going to be given away, I should like to know why we require a mooring mast in Egypt and a mooring mast at Cardington. Why do we need a mooring mast in Egypt for possibly one trip or a few isolated trips? Possibly the reply will be that we are going to build up an airship service. In that case it will be justified, but if not, I do not know why we should erect a mooring mast in Egypt. This would appear to refer to purely experimental work, and it seems unfair that it should be debited to the civil aviation side. I find that out of £228,000 under this Section of Vote 8, there is a bare £100,000 which could be of any possible use for civil aviation, as distinguished from the airship work; all the rest goes to Cardington, Malta and Egypt. I think this money would be far better spent at Croydon. If the money had been properly spent at Croydon we might have had days there when we could have had shows which might have brought in a certain amount of revenue, and would have been an education to the people as to what was being done.
Reference was made by the Secretary of State to the agreements with civil aviation firms, and I would like to ask him if the subsidy to which he referred is all the advantage that they are receiving. Would it be correct for me to say that they have been presented with a certain number of machines; or if not with the actual machines, that they have been given the money with which to buy their own machines, and that in addition they have received the full subsidy to which he has referred. Another point which is worth the right hon. Gentleman's consideration is the irregularity of the hours of civilian flying. A great deal of disappointment has been caused owing to the lateness and irregularity under which the flights take place. If you refer to the records you will find that there are very
few cases where, when the machines are booked to leave say at 12 o'clock, they get away before 1 o'clock. More people might be disposed to use this means of transit as a general method if they knew that they could rely on leaving Croydon at 12 o'clock and being in Paris at 3. It makes all the difference if they know that it is possible that they will not arrive in Paris until 4 or 5 o'clock. On that point I should like to ask the Minister to consider, if it is not too late, including in the agreement with these firms a condition which I know applies in France. In France for every quarter of an hour that the machines are late in starting the French firms lose a, certain amount of their subsidy. It is an excellent idea, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman considers it worthy of consideration. On Vote 8 there is provision of £102,000 for meteorological services, which is over 8 per cent, of the total amount allocated for civil aviation. No doubt this work is of good value, but why on earth is this amount debited to civil aviation? So far as civil aviation is concerned, the amount of value derived from that money is negligible. The chief value of this meteorological service is for the war machines, to a certain extent the Army, to a fairly large extent the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, to a certain extent intelligent farmers, and to a great extent it is of value to people who indulge in golf and trout fishing.
On page 50 there is an item" Atmospheric pollution, £300" To what does that refer? Does it refer to the language employed at the Air Ministry, or by the pilots who unfortunately are misled and crash owing to incorrect information given by the Meteorological Department? If it refers to these unfortunate pilots, it is a great testimony to the splendid reform which has been effected among them. On Vote 9 there is an increase of £362,560. I would like to know what the Royal Aircraft Establishment does for its £364,000, and what the Royal Airship Works at Cardington produce for the £140,000? On page 55 we have the salaries which have been paid at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. The chief designer is paid £600 a year. How on earth can anybody expect to get a first-class designer at £600 a year when civil firms are paying from £1,500 to £2,000 a year? On the next page I see that first-class writers are paid £2 10s. a week, plus bonus. All I hope is that they receive a very big bonus, otherwise
I imagine that they must be very indifferent writers. In reference to research work, there is a national physical laboratory at Teddington which is carrying on aeronautical research work. I cannot find any reference in these Estimates to this work. Why do they run this experimental work at Teddington, and spend £1,750,000 on similar work in other directions? On page 58, Section F, there is the sum of £141,000 for works and buildings. Why does this come under the Research Vote? Because the sum is made up of reconditioning barracks, extending aerodromes, and so on? Why should it not come under the Land and Buildings Vote? What has it to do with research work? These points seem worthy of consideration, and I should be glad to have a reply. My comments have been made not in a hostile manner, but solely with the anxiety to do all I can to assist a splendid service.

Mr. MOSLEY: I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his new appointment, in which we all wish him great success. It is also necessary to offer him sympathy at being placed in the terrible position which the last speaker has thrust upon him, for I have never listened to a more comprehensive survey of the Air Service. I cannot follow my right hon. Friend through the wealth of detail with which he has regaled the Committee, though I hope at a later stage of my remarks to call attention to a few minor matters of finance. Before proceeding to a more critical attitude, I will endeavour to repeat to my right hon. Friend some of the blandishments which those interested in the Air Service offered to his right hon. Friend and predecessor on the introduction of these Estimates. On that occasion many of us took the line which was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), that far too little attention was being paid at present to the development of civil aviation, and still more was this the case in reference to the vital side of aerial research. I do not quite follow my hon. Friend in advocating that further sums should he allocated over and above these Estimates for the development of civil aviation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I very specially said both to-day and on the last occasion that I merely asked for a reallocation of existing money. I did
not think it necessary to add one single penny.

Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman went on to complain that we had not got large squadrons of bombers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said that we were spending too much money on bricks and mortar, and not enough on actual service.

Mr. MOSLEY: My hon. Friend proposes to economise on bricks and mortar, and to devote some of that money to civil aviation, and aerial research. I join with him in that argument. The present is not an opportune time for launching into expensive building schemes, and I think that an explanation should be forthcoming from my hon. and gallant Friend as to why these schemes could not be postponed for a year or so, even if it involved some slight regrettable discomfort to Members of the Air Force. Why could not they continue under the present arrangement in huts and other buildings which are available until the cost of these operations 'diminishes? I would go further and urge that some reduction might be effected in the extensive military establishment to which the Air Service is now committed. Last year, of the money which was earmarked for the purposes of research, a certain proportion was appropriated for the purpose of creating five new squadrons. This year we find a substantial increase in the expenditure to be devoted to the military side, and a comparatively negligible increase in that which is destined for civil aviation and research. The amount to be spent on civil aviation and research this year shows an increase over last year's figures of £336,000, while the amount spent on military and mechanical enterprise is increased by no less than £1,600,000.
We find ourselves in the lamentable position of only placing £60,000 at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman for subsidising the great air routes, and the result, as he has told us this afternoon, is that only one aeroplane will journey each way each day. At the same time France is allocating to civil aviation £3,400,000 at the present exchange rates, which at pre-War exchange would be £7,000,000, and of this sum at the present rate of exchange £600,000 is allotted to
aerial transport. It is hopeless for our paltry £60,000 to hope to compete with this sort of thing. We are faced with the position that we must economise upon our military establishment, or we must decrease the total amount to be devoted to the Air Service if we cannot economise on the military service. That is the only effective remedy if we, are to keep civil aviation alive at all. The result of this economy has been, we know, practically that English civil aviation has been scrapped; only one line is now running. My hon. Friend who has just spoken rather interpreted the view that civil aviation really did not matter, and that the military side was everything. He went so far as to say that pilots were not interchangeable from civil aviation to military service in the event of war. He said that pilots who fly machines carrying mails and passengers could not possibly fly bombers or reconnaissance machines. I submit to my hon. Friend, whose experience is probably more extensive than my own, that the flying of bombing and reconnaissance machines is precisely the function which civil pilots could perform, though they could not fly fighting machines, which requires more extensive training.

Mr. RAPER: I suggested that, to a great extent, they were temperamentally unsuited for the other work. Our experience in the War was that many of the best civilian pilots were unsuitable overseas, though they did very good work behind the lines.

Mr. MOSLEY: We are all, I hope, temperamentally unsuited to fighting, but we do not know until war comes along whether a man is temperamentally unsuited for fighting or not. A man in time of peace may be a perfect stunt pilot. He may be a master of the fighting machine and of acrobatic performances in flying, but when it comes to fighting, he may be temperamentally unsuited to the sound of a bullet. We do not know until a war comes along whether a man is suited for fighting or not, but we can train him in civil aviation to fly reconnaissance and bombing machines. Those who fly machines carrying men are capable of flying reconnaissance machines and bombers, even if they have the temperamental qualification to which my hon. Friend refers. It is, of course, I agree, necessary to have some schemes by which
a certain proportion of these men are taught to fly fighting machines—some form of reserve. They might have so much training in the year on fast machines suitable for fighting purposes, but we cannot dismiss training offered by civil aviation as quite useless for military purposes. My submission is that civil aviation should form the great reserve from which in time of war our fighting pilots are drawn, and with far less expenditure of money, by keeping civil aviation going as a live factor in the life of the country, we can build up an enormous reserve of pilots for time of war, and in the event of war we should find ourselves in a far stronger position than if we relied on a small nucleus of pilots trained in the Royal Air Force and confined purely to war purposes.
Money devoted to civil aviation will go much further than it will go in maintaining a necessarily small Royal Air Force. All these arguments apply far more forcibly to the side of aerial research. We must remember that it is not the aeroplane of to-day that matters, but the aeroplane of to-morrow. After all, this is a science which is in its infancy. It is no use taking the type of to-day and building our plans upon that, thinking that it is constant and unchanging and will be equally useful to-morrow. It is no use doing that and starving altogether the experimental and research side which is devising the machine of to-morrow. The type of aeroplane changes far more quickly than the type of battleship or any other instrument of war. When we think of the little time that has elapsed since the first machine flew a mile—I think it was in charge of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon)—and of the gigantic strides that we have made, it is not outside the realm of practical politics to foreshadow the day when the aeroplane will in turn have revolutionised warfare. Men of science may end warfare by adding so immensely to its horrors that war will become an impossibility for the world. At a moment when we are discussing things like capital ships, when at any moment we may launch into millions on some great building programme of dreadnoughts and other such things, when we are about to spend such large sums, it is folly to neglect the development of an
arm which by any turn of the wheel of science might suddenly be in a position to drive those ships from the sea.
It is argued with force that capital ships to-day are very susceptible to attack from the air. A very slight development in aerial matters may render those ships so vulnerable that they would be virtually useless. The future, not only of commerce, but still more of war, if it has a future—I hope it has'not—certainly lies in the air. Under these circumstances, with such ever-changing factors to consider, is it not folly to put all our eggs into one basket, when surely no war on the grand scale can be very imminent? Is it not folly to conserve the future for the purpose of the moment? I submit that our true policy in the air is to economise to the utmost extent on our immediate military establishment and concentrate our energies on devising and perfecting the aeroplane of the future, on the fostering of civil aviation, the development of the immense resources of pilots, on making our money go in that way as far as it can, and at the same time 011 developing the side of research with a view to evolving the perfect and most potent type of aeroplane
I now ask the Committee to consider the more mundane matter of finance and certain aspects of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Department. The Report discloses a most astounding state of affairs. In my brief experience of these matters, I have never read so scathing a Report by one Government Department upon another. I shall refer to page 52, but every page affords abundant material for comment. In reference to the Cairo-Cape Town aerial route, we find that a sum of approximately £25,600, in addition to an amount as yet unascertained for the pay and allowances of Air Force personnel, is charged in that account for expenditure on the Cairo-Cape Town aerial route in circumstances that the Auditor-General says call for mention. He goes on to say:
It appears that an understanding was reached with the Treasury that within moderate limits funds were available for civil aviation schemes in 1918–19. A sum of £3,000 was accordingly allotted to the air officer commanding, Middle East, for the inception of this route.
He said, too:
In July, 1920, it was ascertained that the expenditure, which was administered by Army paymasters and by the Rhodesian Government in certain sections, would be approximately £50,000.
The sum of £,000 was sanctioned, and it is already rising to £50,000. Next the Auditor-General says:
At this stage the matter was reported for covering sanction to the Treasury, who considered that the scheme should not have been prosecuted without their prior approval.
That seems a very reasonable conclusion—
They asked for an explanation of the growth of expenditure beyond the amount authorised by the Council. … The Air Ministry have not yet replied to the Treasury inquiry, but it appears from later papers that in November, 1920, the total expenditure on the service had reached about £76,000.
There we find Treasury sanction for an expenditure of £3,000 and the Air Ministry spend £76,000, calling down upon its head the severe condemnation of the Auditor-General in this Report. There are two other matters to which I wish to draw attention. The first of the two refers to paragraph 12 on page 52.

Captain GUEST: Is the hon. Member referring to any page of the Estimates?

Mr. MOSLEY: I understand that the general finance of the Ministry is under discussion, and as this Report was presented on Saturday last to the House I presume I am in order in drawing attention to the chaotic condition of these finances.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir W. Pearce): In the Debate so far very wide discussion has been allowed. It would be inconvenient, however, if the hon. Member developed at any great length discussion of the Appropriation Account.

Mr. MOSLEY: I did not intend to dwell long on this point, but it is of such great importance that I hope I am in order and justified in calling attention to it briefly. On the same page there is a reference to certain airship constructional establishments which are now closed down, and the Auditor-General says:
In one case only has any report on the Departmental examination …come before me, and I am informed that examination of the accounts has not yet been commenced in the case of an establishment that was stopped in 1917.

Captain GUEST: On a point of Order. I must ask you to reconsider your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I find that the accounting officer has not yet given his evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, which will report to the House in due course.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that this is a Report published for the benefit of the House of Commons, and that investigation by the House of Commons Committee is an entirely separate affair? We are entitled to form our opinions on a separate subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before a ruling is given I would point out that this is the last opportunity we shall have of referring to these matters. If we dispose of all these Votes to-day we shall not have another chance of raising this question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are many subjects to which attention can be called, and it would be inconvenient to dwell at any length on the Appropriation Account. I hope the hon. Member does not intend to proceed much further than the reference which he has already made.

Captain W. BENN: Under Vote 5 the salaries and allowances of the Air Council are being voted upon to-day. Therefore I submit that any criticism of their conduct is in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand there is another Vote on which this subject can be raised. I do not feel I ought to rule it absolutely out of order, but I appeal to the hon. Member not to proceed very much further.

6. 0 P. M.

Mr. MOSLEY: I had no intention of detaining the Committee on this subject, but as we were considering the salary of the Air Council, I thought it would be as well in passing to draw attention to their methods of conducting the finance of the Air Ministry. I will not refer to that point further, except to ask the Secretary of State for Air one question: Why was it necessary in connection with these airship constructional establishments for the Air Ministry to launch into the building of model villages? The Auditor-General comments in scathing terms on the Air Ministry's activities in that direction. He says "he is unaware of the reasons for continuing work on this village" after
the establishment had been closed down. The Ministry continued its experiments with its model village. The village has since been found to be unsaleable, which is not altogether unexpected if the Air Ministry undertakes work of that sort. The village has been handed over to the Office of Works, and no doubt it will find its ultimate destination in the Natural History Museum. I would ask the Secretary of State for some explanation as to why the Ministry embarked on the construction of a model village, and why, even if it was necessary to start such a village, they continued the work after the airship establishment had been closed. I hope that on a later occasion the matter will be considered in detail, for it is well worthy of the consideration of the House of Commons. It discloses a chaotic condition in the financial affairs of this Ministry which, I think, is unrivalled even in the present condition of Government finance. In concluding my remarks, I would urge upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to turn his attention from the immediate military exigencies of the moment, and to constitute a, great reserve of finance in the event of war by the fostering of civil aviation, and, further, that he will also devote himself to the perfection and development of the aeroplane of the future by keeping alive research and subscribing to that purpose the great bulk of the funds at his disposal.

Captain W. BENN: I should like to support the very interesting contention which was the main theme of the eloquent speech delivered by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley). If the right hon. Gentleman (Captain Guest) will allow me, I think, however, it will come well from one who has often acted as a critic, that I should admit very gratefully how fully the Government has met our demands, that this Ministry should remain a separate and independent office, and if he will accept it from an old colleague, I would like to say how glad we are to see him adorning that office. Ultimately the Secretary of State for Air must be a member of the Cabinet. It shows a total lack of respect on the part of the Government for the air service that while obsolescent services are -still to be represented in the Cabinet the real dominant service of the future is excluded from its councils. That, however,
is said rather with an eye to the future than to the present. The Debate to-day has mainly turned upon a distribution of the money as between the military and civilian sides of the air service. While recognising fully the importance of the military side, I think the Estimate displays a want of recognition by the Government of the real value of civil aviation, even from the military point of view. Everyone admits we must have a fighting air service. We have not reached the point when we can dispense entirely with it. As the Minister himself has said, considerable economies have been effected already by the use of air forces where the Army was hitherto used, particularly in the Somaliland campaign, where at a very small expenditure a very effective blow was struck from the air when with a large expenditure an ineffectual attempt might have been made on land. Those who have experience know there are many fields of war where the air arm is the most effective, as well as the cheapest. It is therefore quite obvious that you must retain an air service for this purpose.
The question is whether the Minister in the task which he is performing is sufficiently seized of the importance of developing civil aviation, even from the military point of view. I do not think I need say anything about the civilising and humanising force which flying may prove in the world in the future. I am only dealing with it from the point of view of a Minister who may be required at some future day to produce an effective fighting air service. We must ask ourselves whether he has been right in his distribution of the money which the Cabinet allows him, as between a service of civil transport, research, and the construction of air squadrons as the nucleus of a large fighting air force. For an effective fighting air force we require three things—the best weapons, the best machines, and the best experience. Regarding the weapons, it is quite obvious that it is only on the military side we shall get the development which is essential. Bombs, guns, and armour are things which have nothing to do with civilian flying and must be developed entirely on the military side. We must, of course, realise that air fighting is absolutely in its infancy. The sighting either of bombs or guns in the air is
really almost non-existent. Accuracy in the dropping of bombs improved enormously during the War; but as regards actual fighting in the air, it is nothing more than a point blank encounter between two opponents armed with machine guns, and even with the very clever devices employed during the War, nothing like accurate sighting of machine guns from the air has ever been reached. The development of all this is a matter for the military side of the air service. The weapons, however, really represent the least important element in the success of the future fighting air service. Maintaining oneself in the air and manœuvring represent something far more important. The soldier can walk as we all can walk, and consequently with him it is the weapon that is important. The navigation of the seas is comparatively easy after the experience of centuries, and there the weapon has far transcended mere navigation in importance to the fighting service. In flying, it is the ability to manœuvre that is the fundamental thing at the moment.
Now let us take the machine. We have got to see that we have the best machine for the Air Service in case of any future conflict, as well as the best engines. 'I suggest that on the military side there is not the same opportunity for developing the best type of machine and engine as exists on the civilian side. A man in command of a squadron must have a uniform type of machine and a uniform type of engine, otherwise he cannot get uniform speed for his formations in flying, which are the foundation of air tactics. Furthermore, the flying of the squadron's is of a much more casual kind than the actual experience gained by the civilian flyer. The right hon. Gentleman may say that civilian flying is so backward that he cannot get the work taken up. But that is what we have to sympathise with, and that is why we want to create and foster civilian flying in every possible way. The hon. and gallant Member for Islington (Mr. Raper) said that the civilian type of machine would have no value in war.

Mr. RAPER: The hon. Member will pardon me, but I do not think I said that. I suggested that its main value in war would be behind the lines for the purpose of carrying valuable stores.

Captain BENN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to say so, I think that is essentially the view of a scout flyer. My contention is that the development of fighting in the air will be similar to the development of fighting at sea. You will get a type of a large and comparatively slow machine operating with a flotilla of small machines acting as scouts. It is a mistake to think that it is only to the development of the small type of fighter that we can look to get a strong air service in the future. On the contrary, air fighting, as I say, will probably follow the same course of development as sea fighting, and what we shall see is a large aerial battleship which will really inflict the heavy blows protected by scouts and small machines. Consequently, so far from the civilian type of machine—which is always striving to decrease its own weight and increase its horse-power so as to carry bigger and more useful loads—being useless from the military standpoint, I think it is the only type of machine in which we can find the nucleus of the big aerial battleship. As regards the question of instruments, parachutes and medical services, those are things in which the experience of civilian aviation is likely to be of much greater value than any experience gained purely on the military side. I do not speak as a flyer because I was only an observer, but I think that the pilot is the worst enemy to the use of instruments in the air. The pilot is a very gallant and brilliant officer whose main desire is to exhibit his own art as a flyer. He is a man who knows his own machine, but when it comes to the scientific development of flying and to the carrying up of instruments and making experiments, which are the real avenues of advance, he tries the weight of the instruments in his hand, refers to them as so mush additional weight which will interfere with his flying, and is critical, if not hostile, towards taking them up at all.
The civilian flyer has to depend on his instruments for his safety in daily flights, and exactly the same applies to the parachutes. I do not know if the Government intend to make some form of parachute compulsory on machines carrying passengers, but the parachute has certainly reached a point where it can be described as the lifeboat of the air. The experience we are much more likely to get in this respect, is the experience
which is forced on people; If you are going to collect material in a matter such as this, you are more likely to accumulate it if you have got a really effective and extensive civilian air transport service in operation. Regarding the medical side, I do not know if the Minister will speak of that. In the War it was felt that the study of the airman was a thing demanding specialised medical knowledge. It was largely a question of nerves and was concerned with altitude and alterations of altitude. I believe at that time the Minister announced that he was prepared to have a special service, but even so, the experience on the medical side to be gained from civil aviation is by no means to be neglected.
I have dealt with the weapons and the machines and now comes the most important thing of all, the daily experience of the air, of weather conditions, and of navigation in flying. I have no hesitation in saying that the most valuable harvest in this respect is to be gained from the civilian side. My hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Raper) who is an experienced flyer knows quite well that the fighting pilot is a much finer acrobatic performer than any civilian flyer can possibly be, because it is necessary for a scout to be able to manœuvre his machine in a very rapid way. That is essential to successful flying. That is not really the whole story of flying, however. The civilian pilot was spoken of by the hon. and gallant Member as being useless for war purposes, but you cannot tell whether a man is good in war or not until you get your war, because I have seen pilots who could do the most surprising performances at split-arsing in the air, but who could not be induced to proceed across the line, whereas straight-going, steady people were found to be real stunners in going long distance reconnaissances. My submission is, that in civilian flying we get a reserve of pilots who day after day are threshing their way along the actual routes which will be used in warfare, who are encountering every day the changing conditions of weather, who know their landmarks, who are accustomed to fly through fogs and mists. There it is that you will find your richest source of supply in the future, even from the purely fighting standpoint. I submit that you may find a safe parallel for guidance in this matter in the Merchant Marine. There we have an enormous
source of strength for the Navy in time of war.I suppose that, really our naval. supremacy was built upon the Merchant Marine and the sea experience gained by these men and from the fact that we regarded ourselves as a nation fit to take the sea, and I submit therefore that as regards the air the same may be true. If the right hon. Gentleman has the skill and the ability, and circumstances favour him so that with thie money at his disposal he can encourage and foster and build up a big civil side of flying in this country, we may come to regard ourselves as a nation pre-eminently suitable to take the air, and if that is the case you have the essential foundations by which a military aerial supremacy, should it be needed, will be built up.
When you look at how the money is' divided, I think the Committee will agree that the bias that I have suggested has not been present to the minds of those who have actually drawn up the accounts. I put in Research along with civilian expenditure, because I agree that research is more important than a subsidy to civilian companies, but putting the two together, you come to about £2,500,000, whereas on the military side on the maintenance of these formations £16,000,000 is being spent. I have no doubt the increase in the Transport Vote, which amounts to about £300,000, is largely due to the military operations in which, as I hold, we are unfortunately engaged in various parts. There is expenditure for a winter station at Fermoy. I am not going to criticise the military policy of the Government or their policy in Ireland at this moment, but I imagine that the sum of £28,000 down here is associated with keeping some of the Flying Corps in Ireland. Then there is this curious thing in Egypt that has not yet been explored. Egypt is a splendid place in which to have a flying school or in which to give people experience. The climate of the Middle East is essentially the climate in which you may hope for the most promising developments of civil aerial transport, but why are the five stations built in Egypt built in the Canal zone? That is the point which we do not understand, and that is the fact which gives rise to the suspicion in the minds of some people that the free development of flying in Egypt has been in
some way fettered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman owing to some military plans of his own. That may not be so, but I only say that the suspicion is given rise to by the decision as to the sites of these air stations.
I would point out also that some of these so-called decreases are not really decreases. A big decrease is made in the transient charge, and a little but a growing increase is made in every permanent charge, and it is not only the figure which is presented to us in one year which conditions the charge we are committing the country to, it is the services we start, the men we employ, and the commitments we lay out for future years, and so we find that service gratuities to officers and men on discharge show a small decrease, and bounties show a small decrease, but those are not really effective reductions in our military expenditure on the Air Service. On the contrary, the pay of officers and men shows a very considerable increase, and the numbers of non-commissioned officers and men both show an increase, which means, of course, not only expenditure this year, but a very large continuing expenditure for all the years to come. I notice, too, that on the first page of the Estimates, which explain how much the Ministry depends on Votes under other heads so far as the presentation of these Estimates is concerned, there is a considerable increase of over £500,000. I am not sure how far it would be in order for the Minister, except in reference to the Vote on the general policy of the Air Council, to refer to that, but while the increase in the National Physical Laboratory is naturally welcome, one very much wonders why there is an almost uniform increase in every other charge which is borne on other Votes in connection with this Ministry.
Then there is the question of the Territorial Air Force. I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will speak about that. I have never been able to understand what was the idea of devising an air force on a Territorial basis; it is a mystery to me. The air has nothing to do with the ground, and it seems to me simply to be bowing the knee to the military ideal that you must organise all these military things on the same lines. The Air is a Service essentially different from the Army or from
the Navy. It is a scientific Service; it is a progressive Service, and I go so far as to say that the discipline suited for the Army or the Navy is not suited for the Air, and if the Territorial Air Force, for which I think £10,000 is taken, is merely an idea of introducing a symmetry into all the defence forces of the country, then I think it is a very great mistake. As regards the civilian side, the actual expenditure shows an increase, because unfortunately owing to the lack of public interest, the full amount could not be spent last year, but it is regrettable that the Minister is not in a position to spend more money on civilian flying. The personnel of the Department, I see, is reduced—I make it a reduction of three persons. We can understand the decrease on the civil side of the Department. The military side is quite simple; you can start new squadrons, and you have your ordinary organisation, and you can enrol new men and attest new officers, but the civilian side is more difficult, because it is agreed that you do not want to start a national civilian flying service, and yet if you assist other people it must only be by way of supplement to their own efforts, and if they will not make the efforts the difficulty of spending money is indeed great, but I most earnestly beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to overlook the fact that, especially at this moment, when great wars are remote and when the type is uncertain and undeveloped, there is an enormous potential value in the development of civil aviation.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I have been very disappointed indeed not to hear any single reference so far to the naval side of the Air Force. I was unfortunate in not hearing the opening remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have made inquiries, and I understand that no reference whatever has yet been made to the naval side of the Air Force. I regard this as a very serious omission indeed. The Navy, I think I am correct in saying, has always been very suspicious at any rate of the arrangement which placed its Air Service under the Air Ministry. It always suspected that somehow or other it would be dominated by a military influence rather than giving sufficient thought to the naval side of it. I do not pretend in the least to be competent to deal with the question, but it is very unfortunate that the Secretary of State
could not have said something about the actual work which has been carried out by the naval wing of the Air Force, if I may so call it, during the past year. I should like to know what developments have taken place, for instance, with the Atlantic Fleet, which went to the Coast of Spain the other day, and a lot of firing was carried out. What experiments were also carried out with the aircraft which accompanied them? People in this country have been told by very distinguished officers from time to time that the battleship is semi-obsolete and is about to be replaced by the aeroplane, but I think it is up to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to try and educate the country in this respect as to what the possibilities of aircraft are.
The possibilities of aircraft in conjunction with the Navy are simply unlimited. I have myself seen a whole squadron on concentration firing, spotting on a target at 10 or 11 miles range on the second salvo by the use of an aeroplane spotting for them. That will give hon. Members an idea of the possibilities of aircraft observation, and that is only a very small part of the functions of the aircraft at sea. There is one particular point which has arisen lately, I believe, and I heard the story with some astonishment and give it for what it is worth. It serves to illustrate the point that it is all-important that the naval wing of the Air Force should under no circumstances come directly under military control, and that there should be more co-operation between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty than there has been in the past. I do not know how many pilots there are who can fly on and fly off an aircraft carrier in the Navy at the present time, but I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell the Committee how many there are. My information is that there are only about half a dozen pilots who can fly on and fly off aircraft carriers at the present time with the Fleet. A short time ago, I am told, the Air Force suddenly required pilots in the Middle East, and I suppose they had not got anybody available I believe there were only six pilots serving with the Fleet who could actually fly on and fly off an aircraft carrier, and they promptly ordered all those six to proceed to the Middle East forthwith. What would have been the state of affairs supposing
the Navy had required to go into action? The Navy has gone in really for a programme of aircraft construction. The Navy has three large and very fine aircraft carriers fitted up with every development, and what is the use of having these ships properly fitted up and only about six pilots who can use them, and then ordering those six off to the Middle East? I really do think that this matter should be further explained by the right hon. Gentleman. There is another point to which I should like to draw attention in relation to the airships. During the late War the Grand Fleet, on which I happened to serve, hardly ever went south into certain latitudes in the North Sea where we did not sight a Zeppelin.
There is no doubt whatever that it may be possible to produce a non-flammable gas for the use of airships, so that an airship at sea will become less flammable, and a weapon, or an adjunct, to the fleet. Such a ship will undoubtedly be able to work hundreds of miles in advance of the fleet, to keep an enormous area under observation, and will be able to do it as the Germans proved. I do think a very grave step indeed has been taken by the Air Ministry in doing away with the airship branch. I know that we are a poor country, and I certainly do not wish to encourage unnecessary expenditure of money, but I do entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman below me when he says that we are really on the fringe of the subject of airships and that it is absolutely all-important to find out exactly as to what we can and cannot do with them. We never had a chance of experimenting during the War. All the experiments were carried out by the Germans against us. I know that the Admiralty only concurred in the decision of the Air Ministry with the very greatest possible reluctance, and I do think the right hon. Gentleman should really reconsider this problem. If he still wants to give away his airship force and cannot get anybody to take it over, would it not be better for him to go into the whole question and again to reconsider it? Possibly it will cost money. Still, it is of the very greatest importance that we should not be left behind and find ourselves in the lurch when the next war breaks out.
One or two remarks made in the course of this Debate have impressed me, and particularly some of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Islington (Mr. Raper) and the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) on the subject of the training of pilots. It may be alright to rely on civil aviation for the training of pilots so far as the Army is concerned, but that will not do in respect to the provision of pilots for the Navy. I speak with due deference to the expert opinion which is present in this House, but I do think we shall have to look very seriously to the training pf pilots for the Navy. I do hope, whatever action he takes, the right hon. Gentleman will use big best endeavours to see that no stone is left unturned to ensure complete cooperation between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty in the future. This is of vital importance. He does not want to get them one against the other, and the Navy are very suspicious at the present time. If the Navy were able to give unbiased opinion they would declare against it, I think. So long, however, as complete co-operation exists we can avoid a danger such as that to which I have alluded.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I cannot undertake to address any remarks on the technique of this matter, but I should like to say, in respect to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon), that his observations regarding airships was the only part of his speech with which I did not entirely agree. It was also the only part of the speech of the hon. Baronet near me (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) with which I did not agree. I do hope now that this decision has been made that we shall get rid of these great gas-bags, which were only a temporary success because the aeroplane engine was in a state of development. I do hope that one of the first things the right hon. Gentleman will not do in his new office, in which I wish him very great success, will be to revivify the dirigible lighter-than-air ship. I believe the position now is precisely what it was in the days of sailing ships,' being replaced by the steamship, and while the latter was being perfected. Sailing men-of-war were perhaps necessary in the broad stretches of the Pacific and so on; and while the aeroplane is being perfected the airship may have a temporary vogue; but the whole case was given
away by my hon. and gallant Friend when he said that when in the late War the Navy got below certain latitudes they always sighted the Zeppelins. Exactly, that is the whole thing! If the scouting had been done with aeroplanes we would not have sighted them at all. We would not have seen them except by chance; but because the gas-ship is so big and vulnerable, and visible at a long distance, I believe the day of the lighter than air air-cruiser is nearly over. When we develop the super-aeroplane a little more it will be a much more economic reconnaissance machine, very much cheaper, and better for fighting purposes and tactical purposes than the great airship.
Not being a flying man I hesitate to enlarge upon this highly technical subject;, but I have read a great many papers, and I attended a good many conferences during the War at the Admiralty on this very subject, and I must say that I think that the heavier-than-air school absolutely carries the day. When we have to look at every penny twice, as we have to do at present, I think that the money would be much better spent on heavier-than-air craft. I know the matter is highly controversial, and I will not go into it further. Might I, however, here protest, as other hon. Members have done, at the state of the House, with so comparatively few Members present when the new Minister for Air introduces his Estimates and his Votes, and when some of us have been listening to some very interesting and highly instructive speeches. It is worse than when the Navy Estimates were introduced. The House takes little interest in the Navy, and even less in the Air Service! In view of the tremendous importance of this subject I think it is greatly to be regretted that hon. Members find their engagements so pressing that they cannot get here, especially the Members of the great Conservative party, whom I was always taught to look upon as being so jealous for the welfare of the fighting services.
I said I wished to deal with two matters of high policy. I will touch upon them very briefly; but might I add my small voice of protest against the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Air not being in the Cabinet. He will forgive me for referring to this matter in his presence; but it is not personal at all, it is a matter of policy. I think it is a very retrograde step that has been taken. Seeing we have
a separate Air Service; and there is a Clause in the Act which lays it down that the Minister of Air shall be one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, why is he not in the Cabinet? My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the ill-concealed plotting in the Navy for the Admiralty to regain control of the Naval Air Service. The worst thing that can happen to aviation would be to put it under the Admiralty, for the Admiralty has resisted the introduction of every modern engineering development for the last 100 years. They resisted the introduction of steam, being in favour of sails, also the breech-loading gun, and the submarine. To put the Air Service under the Admiralty would be the final death-blow to any hope of efficiently protecting the British Empire. That is all the more reason why the Air Minister should be in the Cabinet.
Might I ask these questions? First of all, as regards the Dominions Air Service: I know the great jealousy, and the very proper and justifiable jealousy of the Dominions as regards their sovereignty and as regards their own fighting service. The Dominions have very great objection to have their services out of their own control, seeing they pay for them. Nevertheless I know all the Dominion statesmen are very strongly in favour of the closest co-operation and liaison work between their service and the Imperial service. I would like to know whether there has been communication with our Dominions with regard to their air services and ours; and, in particular, I would like to know whether anything is being done to establish air stations, and the few comparatively simple though very necessary preparations which have to be made. Is the Australian Commonwealth making any preparations of the sort to which I refer in the Northern Territory? I do not wish to particularise more, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware why I ask this question. It is very important. It seems to me that the work of the Imperial General Staff might come in here, and their recommendations would carry great weight in the Commonwealth. We are, I think, entitled to know whether this matter is being kept in mind.
Secondly—and this is a thing which concerns the right hon. Gentleman and his staff—why is it that no preparations have been made for establishing flying
station, first of all, in the Straits of Malacca, at Singapore, or some other suitable place, and again on the other side of the world altogether, in the West Indies? We are asked to vote £19,000,000 for the Air Services. I hope that the development of flying will do away with the possibility of war: first of all, by obliterating frontiers and doing away with the intense national jealousies that are the curse of Europe to-day; and, secondly, by making war so terrible for the civilian population that they will not be able to sit at home and cheer on the armies to their death, for war will mean their own death. I hope that the development of flying will do away with war. But in the meantime we are asked to vote £19,000,000, of which the greater part— £17,500,000 or £18,000,000—is for military and naval aviation. Therefore we are interested to know what preparations are being made to fight in areas where we are likely to have to fight for the defence of our possessions, Empire, and trade.
The Navy and the Army are kept for fighting purposes, and not to provide comfortable jobs for old men and young men, and women and children, too, because I notice that there are plenty of nurses and matrons for whom we have to pay, according to these Estimates. We provide these Services at great cost to the Imperial Exchequer for the defence of our possessions and our trade. The two possible wars—of course, I trust not probable—are first of all in the Pacific, and secondly in the Atlantic. In the first case, the Straits of Malacca will be the most important strategical point in the world for the British Empire, and in the case of an Atlantic, or Western, war we shall have to look to our bases abroad in the West Indies. Our fortified posts there have been used by our cruisers, and they must be adapted for our aircraft or they are incomplete as fortified posts. These posts which have not equipment for aircraft, for pilots, for workshops, and repairs shops are as incomplete as if they had not got artillery. I want to know, therefore, why these vast sums are being spent on Egypt and Malta, and why on earth we seem to be preparing for a Mediterranean war. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we are doing this, neglecting the two areas in which our whole national existence might be threatened if the policy
of the present Government is continued. Those' are my questions. I feel very alarmed that, apparently, both the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are not 'awake to the great importance of making preparations in the Pacific now. I think we should make such preparations during peace time when we are on terms of friendship, and we should now coolly and calmly consider this matter.
The other question of policy I wish to refer to is to see that the staff organisation of the Air Ministry is healthy, because if it is not all sorts of -diseases will arise. I am speaking now from the experience of naval officers. I want to know if the organisation of the staff of the Air Ministry and the service of day to day administration and operations is separate from the purely staff duties of planning and strategical research? I am in complete ignorance of the organisation of the staff of the Air Ministry, but I do know the principles which, if neglected, will bring disaster. With regard to those who have the ordinary day to day administration and organisation of the administrative service in peace time, if the same people are responsible for great strategical plans for war, and if they are not separated, then a most important thing will be neglected, because those day to day details will absorb the time of the staff.
I see that we have a director of Operations and Intelligence, and those ought to be separated, because they are quite different functions. Then we have a Director of Training and Organisation, and I do not quite know what those functions are. There is also s> Director of Personnel and a Director of Equipment. On paper that seems to be a very good arrangement, if the people who have to take the great decisions in prŕeparation for war are separated. I am enunciating a very great doctrine of war, which is understood by all students of war, and it is an ancient and well-tried fact that you must separate the function of planning from the day to day administration. That has been our great trouble in the Admiralty in the past, but it has now been reorganised. That was one of the main reasons responsible for the disorganisation and want of preparation in the Navy in the past, because the men who ought to have seen to the preparations had their time taken up by such things as victualling, docking, and other things, instead of preparing for war. I have mentioned
those two high matters of policy with great diffidence, and I make those suggestions in no unfriendly spirit.
I want to add my voice to a plea for greater subsidies for civil aviation. Why are we not subsidising suitable aircraft for war purposes? We spend a sum of £90,000 subsidising one liner—the Mauretania. The Holyhead to Kingstown mail service is going to receive £100,000, and armament firms are to be subsidised to the extent of £30,000. Why are we only spending £60,000 which is altogether inadequate for the development of civil aviation? I am not so keen on civil aviation from the point of view of a reserve for the Air Service, but it is because I believe that the nation which develops civil aviation will have the means of rapid transport in the future, and the country that drops behind in the development of civil aviation will drop behind the nations of the world. I think aircraft will do away with the miserable lines of painted posts marking the boundaries between countries with their gendarmerie marching on both sides, which produces hatred and mistrust between those little States all over the world. It is in aviation that I see a remedy for this awful state of things. I regret that the Government so far has neglected civil aviation, and I hope the Secretary of State for Air will be known in the future as the Air Minister who set civil aviation on its feet in this country.

Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last has declared that airships are of no use whatever. Possibly on this subject my opinion is of no more value than that of the hon. and gallant Member, but I would remind him that in the statement made by the First Lord last year the following words occur, and they embody the considered opinion of the War Staff:
While the Admiralty regret the decision of the Air Ministry to suspend the airship service, they realise, in view of the stringent financial restrictions, that no other decision could be arrived at.
That means that that decision was arrived at by the Air Ministry because of the stringent financial considerations, and not on the merits of the case. I find myself in cordial agreement with the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson Hicks) in their comments upon the scanty attendance in this House
during this Debate. That scant attendance here, however, is probably due to a large extent to the absence of discussion outside, and that is very likely due to the want of leadership on the part of the Air Ministry in failing to promote discussion. If there is a secrecy policy, as was more than hinted by two or three speakers, then there is no promotion of discussion. I say to the Secretary of State for Air that the maximum of progress is always associated with the maximum of discussion. I hope, therefore, that he will not indulge in that fatal policy of secrecy which has been so characteristic of Cabinet Ministers in the past.
So far as the Navy is concerned, I know that we were always ahead of every other nation while we did not pursue a secret policy. The moment we embarked -upon secrecy we fell behind. I do not know what the reasons are, but it is an historical fact the the greatest progress is associated with the greatest discussion and the least secrecy, and I hope that will be characteristic of our policy in air matters in the future. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow commented on a report which was issued last week. I will not comment upon it now, although I confess that it gave me a considerable shock. We have now been appealed to to leave the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. I will venture to repeat, however, what I have said in previous discussions, that the Air Force is comparatively a new force, and it is possible to establish new traditions in that force. One tradition which might be establshed is that it should be the duty of every officer to promote economy as well as efficiency, and an officer cannot be efficient unless he is economical.
The tendency of the Committee on Public Accounts and of this House is to promote Treasury checks, and that at once makes an enemy of the fighting officer, because the officers gradually come to believe that economy is not their business but the business of the civil servants who are continually worrying them. That is quite wrong, and it was not characteristic of our best officers in the past, who always tried to promote economy to the best of their ability. If that idea is right, then you might get rid of many Treasury and civil officials, and in that way promote great economy. As a matter of fact your civil officials cannot check anything in war time, and if you
have not trained your officers with any enthusiasm for economy you pay heavily in war. Several speakers have already commented upon the fact that the Secretary of State for Air is outside the Cabinet, and there seems to be a general feeling that the Secretary of State for Air should be in the Cabinet. Personally I differ from that view. The Air Minister is quite as important an official as the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War, but what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said from, his seat on the Treasury Bench in answer to a question was that there must be a limit to the sizs? of the Cabinet. It is far too large now.
The First Lord of the Admiralty and ' the Secretary of State for War should concern themselves with defence questions, and should also come out of the Cabinet, but remain on the Defence Committee. I think a solution of the difficulty will be found in ultimately making these Members of the Government responsible only for the administrative side of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Service, and I think we should place the three war staffs, the Imperial General Staff, the Naval Staff, and the Air Staff under a single Cabinet Minister, who would be the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, and they should constitute the Defence Committee, leaving the Prime Minister free to come in as Chairman when he thought fit. In that way we reduce the size of the Cabinet, bring the three staffs together, and we separate the administrative functions altogether from the operations of war. The people who conduct the operations of war would simply transmit their orders to the people who carry on the administration.

Captain W. BENN: What body would decide the amount of money to be spent?

7.0 P.M.

Commander BELLAIRS: The war staffs and the Cabinet Minister who would preside over all these war staffs would settle what forces are required to carry out the policy of the Cabinet, subject, of course, as is the case to-day, to the approval of the Cabinet. In that case the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own idea would be forwarded. It has been stated in this Debate that we are undergoing a revolution almost every day in the air service. I disagree with the Secretary
of State for Air and with the hon. and gallant Gentleman when they say that these so-called revolutions are making the Air Service a substitute for the land or the sea service. What I say is, that this great development of the air service is an extension of sea power and an extension of land power. If we bring these three staffs together under one Minister then the air service, being the most developing force, owing to the progress of invention and everything else, will be undoubtedly the one that will get the best of the deal, because its importance will be more and more developed as time goes on, not as a substitute for, but as an extension of land and sea power.
That relationship brings me to the very question that was raised by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Memorandum last year concerning the discipline of the force. I wish to put this as a question to the hon. Gentleman, and to read what the Naval War Staff says because they considered the question of control. They stated:
The Admiralty had represented to the Air Council that, in their opinion,

(a) the operations of all aircraft flown from His Majesty's ships and vessels with whatever object in view, that is to say, not only operations in the air for offensive and defensive purposes; and
(b) all operations carried out by aircraft not flown from ships, but which are being carried out in connection with the command of the sea, that is to say, operations for oversea reconnaissance and for the attack of enemy ships and vessels,

should be under naval control. Dual control would be unworkable. In all matters relating to the command of the sea the Admiralty are and remain the responsible authority.
That was the representation which was addressed by the Admiralty to the Air Council affecting the discipline of the officers and men working the aircraft in conjunction with the ships and in overseas operations. I want to know, as that question was addressed in the year 1920, whether any decision has been come to, because it is of overwhelming importance when war breaks out that there shall not be dual control on the seas and over the seas.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I do not propose to take up the time of the House except for two or three minutes, and I
shall not go over any of the ground that has already been traversed. Nor shall I refer to that very delicate subject of "great gasbags," which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) dilated upon so fully recently. In a very interesting and able speech the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) mentioned that parachutes were now and would in future be the lifeboats of the air, and that the principle of safety will be one which will have a great effect upon the development, certainly, of the civil side of the Air Force, and must also have some effect on the military side. I rise, therefore, to ask a few questions with regard to parachutes. Perhaps the Secretary for Air will not be able to answer them immediately. I can scarcely expect that, but probably he will be able to give me the information afterwards. This is a matter of some interest both to the civil and military aspects of the case. I presume that parachutes are installed very largely in the aircraft in the Air Force, and I should like to know what results have been obtained from those installations. I would like some particulars as to the installations themselves, their number, and so on, and especially whether there is more than one type of parachute, what the types are, and how far they have proved to be efficient in their actual practical working.
I assume there have been trials, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would kindly give us some information as to the nature of those trials and as to the circumstances under which they have taken place. Were they all trials in connection with airplanes—I prefer to call them "airplanes" instead of "aeroplanes". I wish everybody would adopt that, because when the Bill was brought in I moved an Amendment, and the result was that the word "air" was substituted throughout for "aero." Were the airplanes under the control of pilots and did the men, under the most favourable conditions, simply leave the airplanes in a parachute and descend to the earth? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any steps have been taken to test parachutes under crash conditions? I am told that during the War, on the German side alone, no less than 600 German officers' lives were saved by parachutes being used by them under crash conditions. Are our pilots or observers
in the habit of practising descents from airplanes in the ordinary course of their duties? What amount of research is taking place in regard to this extremely important matter? It is important, not only from the military point of view, but from the civil standpoint. I happen to be concerned with a society which I believe is the leading society now, outside this House, in connection with the development of civil flying. I have also some hopes that it may be able from time to time to exercise some influence on the Government with regard to military flying. I suppose there is some officer in charge of this branch of the Air Force, the parachute branch. I should like to know what his experience has been, what has been done under his observation and guidance in the past, and particularly what he says as to research. I believe that one of the great things that prevents the public from being interested in flying is the danger which they think is inseparable from airplanes. Certainly, with the lifeboats of the air, as my hon. and gallant Friend called them, just like the lifeboats of a vessel crossing the channel, the ordinary passenger will feel a little more confident.
That is all I have to ask about parachutes, but may I say three sentences? First, will the Secretary of State for the Air be good enough to make friends with the Postmaster-General and see if he can get some arrangement with him by which important letters can be carried by aircraft? More than that, will he kindly do something to institute that about which I spoke about on the Supplementary Estimates on the last occasion, an air service between Cairo and Karachi? I am glad to think he is going to continue the subsidy. Does he not think it advisable that, in view of the development of civil aviation, and thereby forming a large reserve for the military side, that there should be some form of propaganda instituted by the Ministry to popularise flying generally in the country. The Aero League of the British Empire, to which I belong, will give him every assistance. Will he co-operate with us in trying to popularise flying in this country for the purpose of developing, not only civil aviation, but also indirectly helping the military side?

Captain GUEST: I have no cause whatever for complaint with regard to my treatment by the Committee, and I have,
during the time which has elapsed while hon. Members have been speaking, done my utmost to obtain answers to the questions which they have put. It will be observed that a great many of them deal with subjects with which I have hardly been able to grapple, and therefore to a great extent I cannot reply to them. I have looked into the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and into Vote 3 of the Appropriation Account of the Air Service, and I think my answers in both cases will satisfy the Committee. The first point is with reference to the Cape to Cairo route, and the expenditure on that in excess of what was originally allowed by the Treasury. I notice that the £3,000 approved by the Treasury was later increased to £15,000.

Mr. MOSLEY: My right hon. Friend will forgive me, but the Report says that the Air Council authorised that increase. It says nothing about the Treasury.

Captain GUEST: Then I regret that I should have made that statement. However, the excessive sum of £40,000—

Mr. MOSLEY: £76,000.

Captain GUEST: Whatever the sum be in excess can, I think, be defended on the following grounds. First, it is almost impossible to estimate what it is going to cost you across a country like Africa. Some of us have tried walking across a great portion of it, and it is extremely difficult to make your calculations very far ahead. In the inspection of the country alone, and in the number of times that you think you have found a site and then discover that you have to find a better one or to change it at the last moment, the difficulties are innumerable. I would appeal to those hon. Members who are strong supporters of civil aviation to support us in what I would describe as a step in the right direction. It is only by threading our way through the jungle and risking the displeasure of the taxpaying public and the Treasury that we can get on with our work. I have some grounds for saying that this is a little bit beyond the scope of the Estimate, and I hope therefore that the Committee will not complain very severely. The other point is, why did the Ministry continue to build model villages after they had ceased to function? The answer to that is, this all occurred before there was an Air Ministry at all, and although it is
clear that someone is to blame, it is not this Ministry this evening.
In attempting to deal with the questions which have been raised, and to take them in the order in which they were raised, I would like first to say that some hon. Members who expected lengthy arguments on general policy, such as co-operation with the Navy and suchlike, must not feel that because I do not say anything about these sides of the subject they are being ignored by the Ministry. I did not feel it my duty this afternoon to attempt such a review, and I confined myself more particularly to points of detail in the Estimates. Civil aviation, however, both in the main and in detail, lends itself to further explanation, and I will say to those who have studied the airship question that, although the decision was taken some weeks ago that they should be abandoned, yet there are some suggestions even now being put forward which may lead the Ministry to run the risk of temporising a short time longer. It is said that it is fatal to hesitate, but at the same time it is a very big step to to take to destroy, as we may have to do, this immense and, until lately very precious fleet. If the Committee will be patient for a few weeks more in connection with this subject, I hope St will be possible to make a more definite statement on the subject.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The suggestion of destroying the fleet is really worse than the other proposal. I think the hon. Gentleman might undertake not to destroy it without the House having an opportunity of discussing it.

Captain GUEST: I used the word really to bring hon. Members up against the hard logic of facts. If no one will take the ships over, if we cannot devise a national service to which they can be put, there is nothing to do but to destroy them unless the Committee is prepared to pay the enormous sum of money necessary for the personnel, for housing, and for general maintenance. Even a few weeks' delay, however, may suffice to bring the matter to a head. The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) who spoke first on the question of civil aviation covered the subject fairly well, and my reply to him and to other Members who also dealt with the same question is that, as far as building is concerned, the Secretary for the Colonies when in
charge of the Estimates was fully aware that the times were extremely bad for building and that money was much required in other directions. The result was that when the Estimates for the building programme were submitted to him a good deal was struck out, and my right hon. Friend recommended a policy which I feel I am absolutely bound to pursue. In fact, almost the whole of the permanent building programme was postponed till better times. Efforts are being made by reconditioning temporary huts and similar methods to continue with the inadequate and unsuitable accommodation at many stations. The building scheme at Halton, however, and the other items in the present Estimate represent the irreducible minimum with which I must ask the Committee to allow us to proceed, but I can assure the Committee that where possible saving shall be effected. The hon. Baronet spoke of the way in which other countries were going ahead, more particularly America, and he read out a programme which was not only alarming to the Committee, but one which must make the mouths water of anyone connected with the Air Ministry. After all, it is a question of being able to afford it. I cannot say what the estimates of the American Government are for this branch of their service, but ours have been framed in accordance with our limitations, and we are doing the utmost we can. The Construction Department endeavours as far as possible to adapt every improvement to our machines. The hon. Baronet did not raise the subject of Egypt which I rather expected he would, no doubt because he expected that the Secretary for the Colonies would be here to reply. But it is a subject which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), and the information which I propose to give to the Committee in explanation of our policy will, I hope, serve to reply to both hon. Gentlemen. The introductory remarks I made in my speech did not seem sufficient, I suppose, to meet their views. I dwelt merely upon the peculiar pivotal position in the East that Egypt might be forced to occupy. The forces in Egypt to-day must be regarded as normal, and whatever changes there may be in the political situation—and those changes are, of course, dependant upon Cabinet policy and not an aero policy—
the force will not be increased without instruction on that subject. Should the Cabinet policy involve larger expenditure later in the year that will have to be provided for in the ordinary way, but as far as Estimates are concerned, we are not budgeting for any alteration in our present policy.
I received from the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Raper) a whole host of questions, and have endeavoured to obtain quick replies to them. I have dealt with the building at Halton already, and several of the points to which the hon. Member drew my attention will certainly receive my consideration. Milton is a place on which a large sum of money has been spent this year. I have been asked why it was necessary to house the civilian employés when they might be housed by the War Office authorities. The reason why they are housed on the spot is that they would have to travel to and from Reading by train, and the cost of thus transporting them day by day would be very considerable indeed. On the question of awards to inventors, the Ministry are not responsible for those; they are made by a Royal Commission. The lodging allowance is based on the same scales as are in operation in the Army. With regard to the Malta aerodrome, it was started 18 months ago, when the England to Egypt route for civil aviation purposes was first taken up, and for that reason it still appears on the Civil Aviation Vote. The question has been asked, in the matter of the cross-Channel service, whether the companies are having other advantages than those referred to in the terms of the agreement which I read to the Committee. The answer is that two machines have so far been hired to the companies for the service, and the number will shortly be increased to three. But the charge for the hire is included in the operating costs of the service, so that the companies will receive no other advantages than those which are apparent on the agreement as I read it. The suggestion that fines should be levied for irregularity of service will receive consideration, and the agreement is still capable of alteration and improvement in that respect. With regard to fares, I am afraid I did not quite sufficiently explain that the charges of both the English and French companies are the same, and it is of course the fact that the French subsidy is so enormously larger
than ours which has enabled the French company to compete with us on these terms.
I come next to the questions asked with regard to experiments and research. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) expressed the hope that we were doing everything we could, not only to keep abreast of the times, but to look ahead. The latest undertaking, in this direction, namely, with regard to new engines, shows a very considerable programme. Many different types have been investigated, varying in horse-power from 150 to 1,000, and I think we may be sure that that is also the case with regard to all other improvements connected with aircraft. Teddington is a by no means unimportant part of this scheme of experiment and research. The work that is done there is the mathematical work and the highly scientific and preliminary stages of experiments. The rougher or more practical work and the more advanced stages of the experiments are carried out at Farnborough. The hon. Member, speaking on more general lines, expressed the hope that fewer squadrons would be needed, and that, therefore, it would be possible to spend more money on the more peaceful side of our work. At the same time, some hon. Members have been anxious to know exactly what service machines we have, and, although I cannot express any opinion as to which way the tendency is likely to go—whether the world is likely to become more peaceful or more pugilistic—I can inform the Committee what our fighting strength practically amounts to. There are 32 squadrons. Three are in Ireland, but I understand that the additional cost connected with them is very slight, since they would otherwise be doing duty on this side of the water. Three are co-operating with the Navy, one is giving a refresher course, and three are forming. Then in Palestine there are six and one forming; Mesopotamia has five, and one is en route there from India; India itself has seven; on the Rhine there is one and at Malta there is one. That makes, in all, 32 squadrons.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are there none here?

Captain GUEST: The British Isles are not very big, and the distances are such as can be readily covered by so mobile an arm. The Committee will realise that
this is a powerful fighting machine, and at the same time that it is being very economically administered. The broad question whether civil aviation is to be the reservoir for pilots is one upon which I do not think I can usefully intrude myself to-day, as I am, so far, really unable to form an opinion of any particular value. I have, however, collected the speeches made by hon. Members and other contributions to that line of thought, all of which I shall ponder upon and, I hope, benefit from. The Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) asked a question about pilots flying from ships, and he proceeded to ask that airships might be further employed with the Fleet, giving instances in which it appeared that this was a valuable combination during the War. I will certainly look into that and see if it is accurate. It was stated that at a given moment some months ago, however, there was no pilot left in England who was capable of this very necessary co-operation with the Fleet, but I should like to see further evidence on the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) threw his formidable weight in the balance against the airship. That, perhaps, shows the wisdom of a little temporising on that subject, and, as I have already said, I shall ask the Committee to grant us that latitude.
The question of the Dominion Air Services, and whether we are in close communication with them, is one of great importance. A specific question was asked, whether Northern Australia is making preparations, and whether there is activity there, and that also is an important question. I think it would be better, however, to deal with those subjects when the Colonial Premiers arrive in this country in a few weeks' time. I am able to say that the communication between the Air Ministry and the Colonies is of the closest and most cordial character, but for specific information on the second question I think it would be better to wait until the Prime Minister of Australia reaches this country. The further question, why no stations have been developed in Singapore or the West Indies, can really only be replied to at the moment on the ground of economy. We are trying to weigh up how to spend the very modest sum allotted to us, and there is a danger that, in spreading our-
selves abroad before we are quite certain what kind and type of machine can best be used from such distant spots, we may be spending money and regretting it afterwards. Egypt, of course, must be our first consideration before we go any further. It may be that the big flying boats will be found more serviceable for the Straits of Malacca or Singapore than an aerodrome, but in any case the Ministry are fully apprised of the strategic importance of the points referred to, and they will be more fully investigated, to see what part they shall play in our Imperial defence generally.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You are spending money on the Malta Squadron.

Captain GUEST: That will not be forgotten, and the suggestion will be considered. I was asked whether the staff of the Air Ministry is healthy. Apparently it is very healthy. When one looks at the Vote which describes the composition and functions of the staff, it is seen that there is not very much difference between it and the War Office. Operations and intelligence have always gone hand in hand, or, at any rate, in rooms next to one another, and intelligence is so vital that no operation can be undertaken without it. With regard to training and organisation, the training in this Force is more technical and more like naval training, inasmuch as we start with boys instead of grownup men. The organisation is as I have mentioned in describing the sub-division of our forces. The Directorate of Personnel would, I think, probably correspond with the Adjutant-General's Department in a War Office hierarchy, while the Director of Equipment is more like the Quartermaster-General in that service. I think the Committee may rest assured that the organisation is as up-to-date and wisely conceived as possible. It has had the advantage of starting almost de novo during the last four years. It has had at its head during that period experienced and brilliant officers, and none more so than the present Chief of the Air Staff, who has brought to bear upon this problem of the organisation of a small and highly technical department, not only his own experience, but also the experience that he has been able to collect from the service in which he served in his earlier days, as well as the
experience of other countries in the same connection. My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last (Captain Benn) has raised the question of parachutes—the lifebuoys of the airship. A special study has been made of that subject, and six types are at present being experimented with at Martlesham and other places.

Captain BENN: With regard to aeroplanes?

Captain GUEST: That I must find out; I should not like to answer without having a little more time to ascertain. It is by no means being neglected, and it is considered by those in charge to be an essential part of the service. With regard to the transit of mails, that will have to be worked through the company which has undertaken the cross-Channel service. If that company proves that it can with regularity and punctuality deliver its mails day by day between London and Paris, we ought soon to be able to encourage other companies to come along and do likewise on a larger scale, and then the Postmaster-General will, no doubt, feel more inclined to entrust to them the care of the important documents for the transit of which he is responsible.

Mr. MOSLEY: I desire to draw attention to the entire failure of the right hon. Gentleman adequately to answer the financial question which I ventured to raise on the very adverse Report furnished by the Auditor-General upon his Department. I know that the right hon. Gentleman himself is in no way responsible for these delinquencies, and I am grateful to him for the courteous way in which he has met all our questions to the best of his ability. I really do think, however, that the position of affairs, which amounts to an absolute scandal, should be brought to the attention of the Committee. The position is that, in the year 1918–19, the Treasury sanctioned the expenditure of £3,000 for an air route from Cairo to the Cape, and the next thing that the Treasury heard about the scheme was that £76,000, or 25 times the amount originally sanctioned, had been expended upon it. I wonder what would have happened if, when Mr. Gladstone was at the Treasury, a sum of £3,000 had been sanctioned by him, and, at the end of a brief period, the Department concerned came back with the calm announcement that £76,000
had been expended? This is yet another instance of the utter futility of Treasury control under the system of the present Government. The Treasury safeguard is entirely broken down, and the whole system is reduced to a farce. Unless we can substitute some other system, whereby the Treaury or the House of Commons can control finance, instances of this nature are bound to multiply, and the present very serious condition of our national finances is bound to continue.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before the Question is put, may I be allowed to say a word on the absence of the Colonial Secretary to deal with the question of Egypt? My right hon. Friend has not dealt with that at all, or has dealt with it from quite another point of view. I raised the question at Question Time yesterday afternoon. The Secretary of State for the Colonies went to Egypt to investigate the Air position, taking with him the Chief of the Air Staff and, I believe, other officers, and we have been waiting for a statement from the right hon. Gentleman. At Question Time yesterday he said to the House: "I will be on the Bench during the Debate tomorrow to answer questions," and I at once gave him notice that I should ask for a report on his journey to Egypt. Of course, I know that there has been a meeting of the Cabinet this afternoon, but the Cabinet has not been sitting the whole afternoon. The Colonial Secretary has been here, and other Cabinet Ministers, also. He has gone out. I do not want to do anything hostile, but I must ask whether I can reserve the right at some future time to ask for a statement. The Committee will see that the position of Egypt is of vital importance. Before the right hon. Gentleman went out it was admitted that Egypt is the very pivot of the Air Service. It means India, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Central and South Africa, and without complete control over a certain portion of Egypt our whole Air System breaks into smithereens. We understand that the Colonial Secretary went out to investigate and negotiate with regard to the political future of Egypt, which is involved in this question, and I wanted from him a declaration as to what he has found out in the course of his journey, and I am sure from what Sir Hugh Trenchard said at the Air Con-
ference in December last, that they are just as anxious as I am as to the position in Egypt. If the Colonial Secretary cannot make that statement now, will it be possible to reserve the right to raise this on some future occasion by putting down on the Report stage, or putting down some other Vote, so that we might get into touch with this very important question?

Captain GUEST: The last intention of the Colonial Secretary was to be absent on this occasion. He was in his room at the back of the Chair this afternoon, and he came to me and said, "Perhaps on another occasion, namely, the Colonial Office Vote, I can make a more valuable contribution to the Debate than I could this afternoon." The co-operation of the Air Ministry has been complete because the Chief of the Air Staff went with the Colonial Secretary to that part of the world. We do not mind waiting for the statement, and I think the Committee will find it will get a more practical opportunity of discussing that, and the whole of it is really Colonial policy, on the Colonial Office Vote.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That being so, I will not press it now, but may I ask you, Sir, to remember that one has done one's best to get it raised on this Vote, and that when the Colonial Office Vote comes on you will give a slight latitude in order to discuss the air position in Egypt?

Question put, and agreed to.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,018,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

CIVIL AVIATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £880,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is one point of detail that I should like to raise on this Vote. Last year an enterprising civilian started an air service from my constituency to Holland, carry-
ing dyes, articles of clothing, and things that were of value, but of very little weight. He made several successful trips and it looked very promising. Then the authorities made him go to Croydon each time for Customs examination. They said they could not examine his machine for contraband and that sort of thing anywhere near the Humber, though there were one or two aerodromes up there. Flying from the Hook to Croydon, and then up again, took away all the profit on the trip. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could look into the matter, because it has killed the service now, and whether some better Customs arrangements could not be made. The only air route to this country is not across the Channel. There are other routes, and it is only a very short time before the North Sea flight will be practicable, and it seems a pity that it should have been turned down because they could not make Customs arrangements.

Captain GUEST: Of course I will do that. It is the first time it has been brought to my notice.

Question put, and agreed to.

EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES.

Resolved,

"That a sum not exceeding £1,706,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Experimental and Research Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

QUARTERING, STORES (EXCEPT TECHNICAL), SUPPLIES, AND TRANSPORT.

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,105,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,758,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

Captain W. BENN: There is one small point that is appropriate to this Vote. It raises a practical question, and I hope it may have the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and the Air Council. In my opinion, the Vote ought
to include a Vote for camouflage. Camouflage is essentially a service which should be directed by the Royal Air Force. Camouflage is protection against observation. Sometimes, it is true, it is observation from ground observers, but nearly always it is observation from the air. How can it be possible for Royal Engineers, or whoever do it, to make an effective camouflage scheme unless they are in the air to observe its effect and its effectiveness? If they are in the air, why should it not be done by people whose proper habitat is the air? This is a very interesting topic because there is not only the negative side of camouflage, but, especially in countries like Egypt where there is bright sunshine and a uniform ground surface of sand, there is a positive side to camouflage. It is a fertile source of deceit for the enemy forces. Everything is judged, whether by the eye or by the camera, by shadows. The actual substance of the article plays a very unimportant part and shadows can easily be introduced with very slight material. It is much too technical and I do not know enough about it to raise it here, but it seems to me that it is essentially an Air Force service. It may have been in the old days, when there was no flying, quite right to give it to some other ground army, but now when all effective reconnaissance at a distance is done in the air, it should be given over to the Air Force as their Department.

Captain GUEST: At present the Air Force and the War Office co-operate in the Camouflage Department, the Air Force, of course, taking aerial photographs, and up to now the subject has been dealt with jointly, but it has become clear now that the Air Force should have its own Camouflage Department, and we may expect in the near future considerable strides along that path.

Question put, and agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £129,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Miscellaneous Effective Services of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

HALF-PAY, PENSIONS, AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £106,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

CLASS I.

ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £167,550, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Expenditure in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens." [Note.—£150,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am afraid that I have not been able to give my hon. and gallant Friend much notice of the question I intend to raise on this Estimate, but the subject has been under discussion recently, and I understand he will be able to make a statement not merely with reference to the position in Edinburgh, but also with reference to the general policy of the Department regarding allotments in the Royal parks. We have been informed that it is the policy of the Board of Works to get rid of these allotments at the earliest possible moment, and I am not going to complain of the policy which has been laid down. I propose, however, to ask a specific question regarding the continuation of the allotments within the Royal Park at Edinburgh. The position there is altogether peculiar. The policy of the Board of Works has been defended because the allotments tended to interfere with the free and full enjoyment of the Royal parks by members of the public. In Edinburgh no such argument applies. The number of allotment holders is comparatively small. The allotments are confined to a diminutive part of a great expanse of territory. They are cordially approved by the Town Council of Edinburgh, they are warmly supported by all the citizens, they occupy land of which no use in particular was made in pre-War times, and they have afforded employment and enjoyment to a fair number of the working-class residents of a crowded district. The First Commissioner of Works was impressed by the peculiar character of the situation in Edinburgh at least to this extent, that he indicated his willingness to extend the tenure of the allotments for an additional
year, until 1923, if I remember rightly. That promise, however, has not been redeemed in a specific form. We have no definite statement that the tenure of the allotments will be so extended and the matter remains in doubt. I wish to ask in the first place whether, in view of the peculiar position of these allotments in Edinburgh, which are not in any way interfering with the full enjoyment of this public park, it would not be possible to extend the tenure indefinitely. There would be no injustice in doing so to any other part of the country because the conditions are almost completely different. In the second place, if indefinite tenure cannot be afforded I want to ask whether the Board of Works will be prepared to grant some additional concession, or at all events to make the concession till 1923 definite, looking to the very strong representations which have been made on behalf of the allotment holders in this part of the Scottish capital.

8.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (Lord of the Treasury): I understand it has been the policy of the Board of Works as far as possible to bring what were purely temporary arrangements and concessions due to the conditions of the War as rapidly as possible to an end. I have listened to what the hon. Member has said with regard to the case of Holyrood Park. As far as my information goes, the arrangement there was that the tenancy was to terminate first of all in February, 1920. That was extended until February, 1921, and in November, 1919, it was again extended till February, 1922. The hon. Member now asks that it be still further extended, either indefinitely or till 1923. All I can say at the present moment is that I am not personally acquainted with the exact position or its peculiar circumstances. I can only undertake to bring this matter to the notice of the First Commissioner of Works, and I am sure he will take a most sympathetic view, to see if it be possible to grant any further facility, at the same time preserving the amenities of these public parks.

Question put, and agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £120,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."— [Note.—£40,000 has been voted on account.]

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,441,450, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."—[Note.—£700,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £5,000.
I should like to protest against this enormous Vote for building purposes at a time when, I suppose, building costs were never higher. At the present time everybody knows, I imagine, that building a house is one of the most costly things you can do. Yet the Government choose at this time to undertake an enormous building programme for these revenue purposes. We know what legislation is going on, and we are well aware that the poor taxpayer is going to be hunted even more severely than he has been in the past, and not only hunted, but it seems that he will have to pay a very large extra sum for the pack of hounds that hunt him. I am afraid the Committee does not like figures very much, but I must, in order to make my case, quote one or two figures of this Estimate. In the first place, the Department is asking for £500,000 more than it did last year in respect of these buildings. The chief increases are not merely for works that are already in progress. I am sorry to say the chief increases are in respect of entirely new works, that is to say, works to be proposed in future. Another point to which I think the Committee ought to pay attention is the great difference between the original1 total estimate of these works, and the revised total estimate. I will give figures in a moment showing that in a great many cases the original estimate for these works has been enormously increased, showing that the cost of building, apparently, is still going up, and that, therefore, it is highly undesirable to go into this building programme at the present moment.
Taking, first of all, the works that were in progress, you have got an estimate for Manchester, the purchase of a site and the erection of a building on which £29,000 was spent last year, and the Government are going to spend £40,000 this year. The original estimate for that building was £113,800, and it is now £163,530; that is to say, the revised estimate is £50,000 over and above the original. Take one or two more instance of works already in progress. You have a new stamp office at Mount Pleasant. Four times more is to be spent this year than was spent last year. You have a new letter sorting office at Mount Pleasant on which the Government is spending double this year that they spent last year, and, in regard to the second item, the original estimate was £120,000 and the revised estimate is £418,000, or very nearly £300,000 more than the original estimate. Surely that being the case the Government ought to hold its hand and postpone the erection of this building until things are a little cheaper. Then £40,000 is to be spent on rebuilding the Threadneedle Street branch post office. The original estimate was £23,500, and the revised estimate is £90,000. There are dozens of similar items all through the country. There is a new parcel office at Liverpool on which three and a half times more is to be spent this year than last year. The original estimate was £83,000 and the revised estimate is £310,000, and yet, knowing the way in which building costs are going up, apparently day by day, the Government insist on these most expensive works. At Reading there is a new head post office on which it is proposed to spend this year 20 times what they did last year, namely, £40,000 as against £2,000. Those are works already in progress which, in a great many cases, could very readily be postponed.
I now come to works which are entirely new this year. They are going to build, apparently, 90 new district offices for the, Inland Revenue, and £190,000 is to be spent this year. They are going to spend on entirely new works, £10,000 apiece this year on a new station sorting office at Croydon, and a new post office at Rochdale, the total cost being £75,000, and they have got minor unforeseen works costing nearly double what they did last year. I suggest this is not the time to incur this enormous expenditure on buildings.
Surely they can wait a little time until the cost of building comes down. This is the moment, I suppose, when it was never more expensive to build these elaborate works. I say they ought to be postponed. We ought to have an explanation about this work. We all know that a Revenue Bill is going to be introduced. I suppose that Bill is going to be one of the most controversial measures of modern times. I should like to ask the Government whether this Estimate is founded on the state of affairs that will be when that Revenue Bill is passed, or whether this Estimate is founded on the present state of affairs before the Revenue Bill is passed? It is very important. I have hero the Report of the Royal Commission of which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) was a distinguished member. I find that the Commissioners estimate that considerable saving will take place in the Revenue Department if the Bill is passed. We are going to pass the Second Reading of this Bill almost immediately, and I suppose the Government do not bring in a Bill unless they expect to pass it. I should like to know whether this enormous increase over last year has been based on the supposition that your Revenue Bill is going to pass, because, if so, I should like to know why, instead of an increased cost, you are not going to have a decreased cost? I should like an explanation about that, because I have no doubt my hon. Friend (Mr. Graham), who knows far more about this question than I do, will be able to point out that in various ways, into which I will not go, the cost of collecting these taxes has been greatly reduced during last year, and therefore this Estimate for revenue purposes ought to have been considerably reduced also. To cut the matter short, I suggest that this is the worst possible time to engage in this enormously expensive building programme. I believe it is a fraud on the taxpayer, and therefore I propose to move to reduce the Vote by £5,000, and shall go to a Division on it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, but I wish to begin by making a protest against the absence from the Treasury Bench of the Assistant Post
master-General, because most of the expenditure is due to his Department, and I think he might have been here to explain some of these extraordinary items. Secondly, I wish to protest against the absence of any representative of the Treasury. This is, I suppose, the only opportunity of discussing this Vote, which shows an increase, in spite of all the talk of economy on the part of the Prime, Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who boast to the country of what they have done to cut down expenditure, and then there is this increase of over £500,000 for Revenue and Post Office buildings. I think we certainly might have had the Assistant Postmaster-General present, and some representative of the Treasury. I do not think it is treating the Committee properly. Look at some of these items. They estimated for a new parcel office at Liverpool, and I suppose the people who are pressing for this office said it was only a fleabite—£83,000, when the work was started. Now there is a revised estimate of £310,930. In other words, the original estimate has been exceeded by 400 per cent. What is the explanation of that? There are many other cases. At Harrogate a new sorting office was to cost £8,975. Now it has gone up to £24,200. There are actually 46 of these items for buildings, great and small, ranging from the Liverpool scandal of £310,000 and the Mount Pleasant new letter sorting office of £418,000, down to village post offices, on which they are spending a few thousand pounds. In practically all these cases the original Estimates have been exceeded three or four times, and the result is that the Estimate is up by £500,000. I very much regret that the hon. Member for Wood Green did not move to reduce the Vote by a much larger sum. I am very glad to see that the Minister of Labour is here. He is always telling us that one of the reasons why we cannot get houses built is because of the shortage of bricklayers. We have had that ad nauseam. This Vote explains where the bricklayers are who might be building workmen's cottages. It is not the fault of the wicked trade unions, but the fault of the Government who are taking these men for building sorting offices, parcel offices, etc., up and down the country, and revenue offices and Excise buildings all over the place. At Coventry they are spending
£51,400, and at Crewe £41,000. North, south, east, and west they seem to have burst out into an orgy of re-building, re-modelling, and new buildings, mostly on behalf of the Post Office. It is simply scandalous.
The housing problem is still acute, and I think this Government building programme might have been postponed. It means that the Government are competing with the local authorities in building material, and are forcing up prices. It means that there is delay in housing the people, and then the Government wonder why there is unrest. Here we are in the most dire need of economy, with industry crippled by heavy taxation, with unemployment caused by reckless expenditure on the part of the Government, and, so far from economising, they are spending an extra £500,000 on works for one Government Department alone. Then the Assistant Postmaster-General thinks the House is so complacent and the public outside are so docile and cowed that he does not think fit to put in an appearance, and no representative of the Treasury, who are supposed to be the guardians of the taxpayer's pocket, does us the honour of coming. I hope that the few Members who are present will not only support us with their vote, but that they will tell other hon. Members who are not present of the scandal that is being perpetrated. Apparently, the Government's intention is to force this sort of thing through in the dinner hour. The whole thing is a good example of the Government's financial methods of profligate, reckless extravagance.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) would be the last to refuse Government officials the necessary accommodation for the discharge of their duties; but I am bound to associate myself most strongly with the proposal he has made for the reduction of this Estimate. I propose to support him mainly because I regard the Estimate as altogether indefensible from the point of view of the new Revenue buildings in particular. If this had been a mere matter of repairs or additions pr alterations, I might not have had the same objection to the Estimate; but it includes large sums for new
Revenue buildings. I submit that the circumstances surrounding these proposed buildings are such as to make it impossible for the Government to proceed with this expenditure at the present time. There are two considerations which we must keep clearly in mind. In the first place, there is in different parts of the country anxious inquiry by experts and others into the cost of building, and there is a feeling at the moment that if we have a combination of forces designed to effect economy there may be substantial reduction in cost, which presumably would enure to the benefit of the Government as to the private individual. That alone would be sufficient to justify us in our opposition to the erection of new buildings, unless we are absolutely convinced that they are required.
In the matter of Revenue buildings there is a more important reason. Two years ago the Royal Commission on the Income Tax spent 12 months considering the whole structure of Income Tax, and more particularly its administration, and in the parts of the Royal Commission's Report dealing with administration they drew attention on innumerable occasions to the economies which they thought the adoption of their proposals would effect. These economies are not merely economies of personnel. They are economies of an administrative character, which would involve, one would imagine, a certain concentration of work and a reduction of the number of buildings required. Hon. Members may argue that in some ways the extent and scope of the Income Tax has been broadened and widened, and probably additional buildings will be necessary; but against that I would put this consideration, that the Excess Profits Duty will disappear, which must very largely reduce the work in the Department, that in the second place the Income Tax limit has been substantially raised, which would again tend to reduce the number, and, thirdly, we know that about 70 per cent. of the Income Tax of this country is collected at the source, which must further tend to reduce the work in the Department. When we add up these considerations it becomes impossible for those who sat on the Royal Commission on the Income Tax to understand how these new buildings can be proposed at the present time.
That is not by any means the whole case. In the Budget of last year a number of the proposals of the Royal Commission on Income Tax were introduced, and in the Revenue Bill which has been presented to Parliament a number of other changes of an administrative character are proposed. The memorandum which has been issued in connection with that Bill indicates that only a portion of the recommendations of the Royal Commission is incorporated in that measure. In some future measure the further part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission will be adopted. Those recommendations in our judgment all make for economy, and that economy includes economy in the matter of buildings. In these circumstances, when we have not yet tackled the redistribution of the units or areas for Income Tax purposes, and when there are definite proposals to try to establish some kind of co-operation between the local authorities and the Inland Revenue in the diffeent districts to secure economy, I find it quite impossible to defend this Vote. I sincerely trust that my hon. Friend in charge will consider the advisability of withdrawing these proposals, so that we can wait and ascertain the way in which the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax will work out in practice.

Dr. MURRAY: This Vote throws light on some things that were dark to me before. I have often protested against the mean economies of the Post Office with regard to the mail service in some parts of the country, and now I find that the money, which ought to be spent in providing a decent mail service for some of the outlying parts of the country, is being wasted on bricks and mortar, especially in England. When I go to the Post Office and ask them to restore the pre-War service, for instance, between the mainland and my constituency, where there was a daily service in existence about 40 years, I am told: "They must learn the lessons of the War there. The finances of the country are pinched, and we cannot afford to give the necessities to civilisation in the way of postal facilities." But here are unnecessary buildings, on which hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent. No doubt some of them would be necessary in normal times, but the Post Office and other Departments should also remember that the country is poorer than before, and
they ought not to practise the little mean economies, which are practised in our part of the country, but save on the bigger things on which they are now wasting so much money.
These little mean economies are practised on an undefended people in a remote part of Scotland. Therefore I join in the protest that has already been made. In these days when building is so expensive, and everyone wants to put off even necessary repairs in his own house, the Post Office and the Revenue Department should not indulge in this luxurious building while entering into competition in building with people who need houses. There is one item that needs explanation. On page 31 I find that fuel, light, and household articles for the Post Office for England and Scotland cost £203,500, against £141,000 last year. Has the price of candles gone up? I would like an explanation of the tremendous increase in this one item. Did they think that the total eclipse of the sun was going to last the whole year? Of this Vote only £13,800, I am glad to say, is spent in Scotland. When you consider the relative populations of England and Scotland, this sum ought to be very much larger. Why should England and Wales, spend a much larger proportion than Scotland? England is supposed to be a sunnier clime than Scotland. Why, then, should they use more candles? I join in the protest that has been made by the faithful watchdog of these Estimates against this great expenditure on buildings at a time when every man should try to do with laying as few bricks as possible.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Hon. Members will realise the practical difficulties under which I speak. I am answering for a Department which has to carry out the necessary building repairs, and look after the upkeep of all these public Departments at the request of the various Departments concerned, and all that this Department is peculiarly concerned with is to see that such expenditure as is incurred is done in the most economical manner. The policy is imposed in a great many cases on the Department by the demands of the various other Government Departments, and with the consent and approval of this House. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) referred particularly to the
case of buildings in Manchester. I think that the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) also referred to this. As far as I understand this case, the original arrangement for the purchase of a site which was contemplated last year fell through. Subsequently, another site of a suitable kind was found. It is the belief of the Department that by the bringing together of the Revenue officials in central buildings there will ultimately be a real economy. At present they have got to be housed in various places at an increasing cost. Until the House actually sanctions this expenditure no contract for the buildings has been entered into.
On the general question, the efficiency of the various Departments concerned cannot be obtained unless the absolute necessities of the Department are met. The greatest care will be taken both by the Department for which I am speaking and by the Treasury to see that excessive demands are not made. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) referred to the increased cost of lighting. I am not able to give a definite reply, but it is recognised that the cost of lighting has increased in every part of the country, as also the cost of fuel, electric current, and furniture. I do not know that I can say anything else usefully on this Vote except that I am certain that my Noble Friend who represents the Department will take care to investigate, as far as this Department is concerned, all further schemes of building of an extravagant or permanent kind. I do not admit that the demands made, for instance, by the Post Office are grossly extravagant. I hold that both the Post Office and the Office of Works have justified the calls they are making on the taxpayer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard me, but I asked about the new parcels office at Liverpool, for which there was an original Estimate of £83,000, which has now grown to £310,000.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am afraid I cannot at the moment give full details of the increases, but it must be clear that the general cost of all building undertakings has gone up since the original Estimate was framed. It is impossible for any Department, or even for any firm of contractors, to keep the figures as low as they were a year or so ago.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I agree that it is not fair to expect my hon. Friend to be able to answer these questions. He has just gone into the Department and he cannot possibly know all these details. It is all the more important, therefore, that we should have here Ministers who can answer questions. This Vote is for buildings for revenue purposes and for the Post Office. Why are not the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury present? We cannot get on. We are not being asked for £100 or £1,000, but for over £2,000,000. It is an outrage upon the dignity of this House that Ministers should not be present to answer these questions. Therefore I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Sir J. D. REES: I do not think that the proposal of my hon. Friend is reasonable, or that it is fair for him to make such a complaint at twenty minutes to 9 o'clock. I have been in this House some years, longer perhaps than himself. It is a well-known thing that at this particular period the House is always thin. I never remember it otherwise on any occasion, nor have I ever seen at this hour the Treasury Bench laden with Secretaries of State and Ministers of that calibre. At the present moment, besides my hon. Friend who replied on the Debate, there are present the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade, fresh from a victorious election. I think the hon. Member's objection is really beyond the necessities of the case.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think the hon. Baronet who has just spoken quite appreciates the position of hon. Members who have been here dinnerless while he presumably has refreshed the inner man. I hope the Committee will support the proposal to report Progress. This is a Vote for £2,140,000. It is for Customs and Excise buildings and Inland Revenue buildings, which concern the Treasury, and for Post Office and Telegraph buildings, which concern the Post Office. Although we appreciate the candour of the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government, and the very delightful way in which he met our points to the best of his ability, I say that the people concerned ought to be here. The Assistant Postmaster-General ought to be here. If I may say so with respect, it is
what the House of Commons pays him his salary for. The question is not whether it is 20 to 9 o'clock or 20 to 10 o'clock. This is the only chance we have of examining the Estimate in detail. I wonder what the voters of Nottingham will say to-morrow when they ascertain that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees) has made the speech we have just heard.

Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member need not trouble himself about what the people of Nottingham think about me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will excuse my heat, but I am speaking for hundreds of thousands of people living on small fixed incomes who are ground down by taxation. I declare that there has been reckless extravagance in building new post offices up and down the country. We should have some explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the item referring to revenue buildings in Manchester. Last year there was a very heated Debate in the House on this item. It was then proposed to spend £113,800. The reasons put forward for the item tonight were put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. The House of Commons did not accept the explanation last year, and eventually a compromise was reached. It looked very much as if the Government would be defeated, and they agreed that only the land would be bought and that further consideration would be postponed for another year. This is the further consideration that we

were promised by the Government. The sum has now increased from £113,800 to £163,530. The only result of last year's protest is that we are now asked to spend another £50,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be here to give some explanation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir W. Pearce): rose to put the Question—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: On a point of Order. The Motion before the Committee is that the Chairman do Report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not accept the Motion.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When a Member proposes a Motion of that sort, and other hon. Members are allowed to debate it, does not that constitute it the Motion before the House? When the Chairman decides not to accept a Motion of that kind, does he not rise before the Member has proposed it, and say that he cannot allow it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, that is not so. I allowed a certain amount of debate, and I think that has exhausted itself. Consequently I propose to put the Question.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,436,450, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 120.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[8.48 p.m.


Atkey, A. R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Poison, Sir Thomas


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hallas, Eldred
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cairns, John
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cape, Thomas
Hayday, Arthur
Spoor, B. G.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hogge, James Myles
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Irving, Dan
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Johnstone, Joseph
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Wintringham, T.


Finney, Samuel
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Gillis, William
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Myers, Thomas
Sir C. Cobb and Mr. G. Locker-


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Nail, Major Joseph
Lampson.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)




NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perring, William George


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Purchase, H. G.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ramsden, G. T.


Barnston, Major Harry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rankin, Captain James S.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Raper, A. Baldwin


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Renwick, George


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Jameson, J. Gordon
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bruton, Sir James
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Casey, T. W.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Seager, Sir William


Cautley, Henry S.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kidd, James
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Clough, Robert
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lloyd, George Butler
Stanton, Charles B.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Stevens, Marshall


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lorden, John William
Stewart, Gershom


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lort-Williams, J.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lynn, R. J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edge, Captain William
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sugden, W. H.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macquisten, F. A.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Taylor, J.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mason, Robert
Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fildes, Henry
Mitchell, William Lane
Tickler, Thomas George


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Forestier-Walker, L.
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Forrest, Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Gardiner, James
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Waring, Major Walter


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Winterton, Earl


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Wise, Frederick


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pearce, Sir William



Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN,

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £942,350, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."—[Note.—£500,000 has been voted on account.]

9.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: I thought my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would have ventured to explain this Vote to us. We would prefer to hear him before proceeding to criticise it. There are some very important items in this Estimate on which we would like some information, and the usual practice is for a Minister to give the Committee some idea why the sum mentioned is required and then to reply to criticisms. It saves time when the Minister in charge of the Vote takes the trouble to extend the courtesy to the Committee of explaining in brief why he wants this money, as those of us who rise
to criticise may quite easily take time in criticising what the Minister might put right in a single word. If he is not going to take that course, I should like to ask him for some information with regard to services arising out of the War included in this Vote. This House is very jealous of the maintenance of its pledge to the discharged men who fought in the War with regard to the provision which the Government has made towards their reinstatement in civilian life, and on page 38 of this Vote we have, under Sub-section M, two services in regard to which I particularly wanted to hear what the Minister had to say. The first of them deals with the acquisition and adaptation of factories and hostels for the training of demobilised non-commissioned officers and men of His Majesty's Forces and for the training of women. The original Estimate for these works was £1,200,000, and apparently there is a saving, in so far as the revised Estimate is less than that amount, but there is a sum asked for to complete this Vote, which is in the nature of a re-Vote, of £250,000. However much we may criticise the amount
of money that is in a Vote, this is the amplification of the promise of the Government to the discharged men, and this is the only opportunity we have of my right hon. Friend saying in detail what is being done for these men. These factories and hostels were largely factories which were built for War purposes, and in various parts of the country they were taken over for the purpose of training the demobilised non-commissioned officers and men. I remember last year, when we were discussing this, the point of criticism which was urged from most quarters was that there was a great number of men being trained for occupations to which they could not get access after they were trained. The particular industry most concerned at that time was the building industry, and the point arose as to how far the money expended by the Government on training was a wise expenditure if the men trained could not be absorbed into the industry for which they were trained. That is a point of controversy between the Government and organised industry in this country, and as I am neither in the Government nor in organised industry, I can talk without prejudice, but I would like to know how far those factories and hostels have satisfied the demand made by the demobilised officers and men for this training; I should like to know the various categories into which the demobilised officers and men have been placed for the purposes of training, the number who have entered these hostels for training, how many have been equipped in the factories, and how many have been absorbed into the industries for which they have been trained.
The second point deals with the Ministry of Health, and there is there this vexed question of tuberculosis. The original Estimate was for £250,000, and the revised Estimate is for £143,125. The point about the tuberculosis is this. I expect, like myself, a large number of hon. Members were surprised at the ease, shall I say, with which in particular men who belonged to the Navy are subject to tuberculosis, but it is a fact that a great number of the men who were recruited for the Army and Navy, although they were passed into the Army and Navy as fit men, were discharged from the Army and the Navy as men who were suffering from
tuberculosis. Under the National Health Insurance Act, the number of waiting cases for admission to tuberculosis sanatoria was larger than the sanatoria could admit, and to meet that difficulty with regard to the forces both of the Army and Navy the Ministry of Health took power to provide accommodation for the training of the discharged soldiers suffering from tuberculosis. They were put into institutions where they could gain the advantage of all the atmospheric conditions which were necessary to their recovery and at the same time learn some useful trade by which they might be absorbed back into civil life. Before I criticise I should like to know the results—how many members of the Army and the Navy were, outside the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, admitted to those sanatoria for the purpose of being treated for tuberculosis, what trades they were being trained in in those sanatoria, how many of them have been absorbed into civil, industry cured, and how many still were in sanatoria.
There are other points in the Vote which I may put later, but my main interest in this Vote—as my right hon. Friend may imagine in view of the interest I once took in discharged men—is to know that we are really carrying our our promises and our pledges to those men. He knows, and we all know, that one of the easiest things for us all to-day, the longer we are removed from the circumstances of the War, is to forget what we pledged ourselves to these men to do. If there is any man connected with the Army or the Navy who has done service in the War and feels aggrieved that he is not getting the treatment he requires these Estimates give us the occasion on which we may expect from the Minister of Labour the facts in regard to these cases. Personally I shall feel much obliged if he can inform me on the two points I have put.

Sir J. D. REES: I challenge attention to the accommodation for the training of discharged sailors and soldiers suffering from tuberculosis. As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, these are men who were passed by the medical service and subsequently led conspicuously healthy lives, perhaps the healthiest lives that could be imagined; lived by rule, fed by rule, in the fresh air all their time, living lives compared with
which that of a Member of Parliament is of a most fatal and deadly description—yet these men are discharged as suffering from this deadly disease and apparently are provided at very large expense with some training. For what occupation? For what occupation is the term "tuberculosis" a qualification? I confess I do not understand. I hope that I am not saying anything unreasonable or capricious, but I do feel the profoundest mistrust of doctors and their opinions and actions in this respect. For the doctors—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): We are not now, I would remind the hon. Gentleman, discussing Health Services. We are now discussing the provision of buildings for these purposes.

Sir J. D. REES: Am I not in order in suggesting that the accommodation provided may be provided owing to erroneous action on the part of the doctors, or too much attention being paid to it by those who provide these buildings?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on this Vote. The Committee and the House have decided to expend money for these services, and this is the Department concerned with providing the buildings. The general policy of these services does not come into consideration, only the question of what buildings should be provided.

Sir J. D. REES: Of course, I quite see that one must keep closely to the building, but the building is a very expensive item, and if I might be allowed to stray so far as to suggest that the filling of the building was a subject for some criticism I should be grateful. However, I quite realise, if I may say so, the absolute justice of your ruling, and I will not trespass any longer on the time of the Committee, except to take the opportunity of repeating what I said at the opening, my profound distrust of the doctors in this matter.

Major BARNES: I want to raise one or two questions in connection with the Vote for works in progress. I do not speak in any unfriendly spirit towards the Ministry of Labour, for there is no part of the expenditure of the Government with which I feel more sympathy than expenditure on questions connected with health and labour. But there are one or
two matters which arise on this Vote for works in progress on which some information should be useful and helpful to the Committee. Let me take an example in the work that is going on in the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne, of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives. So far as I can understand, this Vote and the policy adopted—and it brings out several things—first of all, there is the purchase of a site—which is the preliminary to building. A site was apparently purchased, for which the sum of £45,195 was voted in 1920–21. I am on page 34 of the Estimates. I observe on the next page that the sum of £9,995 was voted for the erection of huts for Divisional Office and Employment Exchange. That suggests to me that the policy adopted there was a very sound one, and was in order to enable the Minister to get on with his work. The temporary buildings were put up in order to help this forward. These temporary buildings have cost a substantial amount, nearly £10,000. One has no means of judging whether they are worth the money or not, and I am going to assume that they are, and that the Office of Works-has seen to that. Therefore the position in Newcastle is that a site and some temporary building in connection with the work of the Ministry of Labour is being carried on.
I observe, however, that for the erection of a permanent building the sum of £188,500 has been voted, which would appear to suggest a building of very considerable magnitude. I can only hope that when this building is finished it will be a worthy adornment to a city which prides itself on the possession of very many buildings of very considerable architectural importance. I am not advocating for a moment any extravagant expenditure on architectural frills, but I think if the Ministry is going into-an important city, and spending a large sum of money on this account, that some attention should be paid to the appearance of these buildings and that they will not be any kind of disfigurement. The point I want to raise is this; Apparently the work of erecting this permanent building is going on because there is put down a probable expenditure up to March, 1921, of £21,450. On the Vote £20,000 is required for 1921–22. That suggests to me that this building is going to take something like 10 years to
build. It is estimated to cost nearly £200,000, upon which you are expending at the rate of something like £20,000 a year. I hope I am wrong, and that the Minister of Labour will clear that up in this Committee, because if this be correct it would suggest that at this moment in the buildings that are being erected, not only in Newcastle, but other cities, that if they are of this magnitude they will be spread over a long period. It would suggest that the proper policy to adopt was not to commence to build at all in these days of very high prices, but to be content for a while with the temporary buildings which have been provided in the Vote, and which, as I have already mentioned, for five or seven years during the War saw a lot of useful work done under, of course, more or less comfortable conditions. It appears to me that the sound policy would be not to encourage any building operations that are permanent in character at the present moment, more particularly if they are going to be carried on at the rate of speed indicated in this Estimate, Prices in building materials, as in everything else, are falling, and in two or three years' time there is no doubt that we shall be able to build more cheaply than to-day. If this Department, and every other Department, could content themselves with temporary accommodation arid leave permanent accommodation to the future a great saving would be effected.
The point I have made with regard to Newcastle applies to other places like Leeds, where there has been an expenditure of £125,000 for this purpose, and that appears to be at the rate of £33,000 a year. At Kew an enormous sum is being spent at the rate of £50,000 a year. On that general point I hope the Minister will tell us what is being done with these permanent buildings. All these buildings are being carried out under the supervision of the Office of Works, who have been entrusted with a considerable amount of work in regard to housing in addition to this other work. What is happening is that you have the same body engaged in housing work employing direct labour, and also engaged in this more general contracting work on permanent buildings. I find it difficult to see in what way this does not clash. How can this Department push forward housing schemes and at the same time be
pushing forward these great permanent undertakings. This fact may explain the very slow progress that is being made on these permanent jobs, because the interest and attention of the Office of Works is being directed in other channels.
There is another item for the provision of a dining room for the Claims and Record Office at Kew. It was originally estimated to cost £25,000, which, I think, is quite a handsome sum for a dining room. This sum has now been increased from £25,000 to £40,000, and it must be going forward at the rate of something like £5,000 a year. This is a matter upon which I hope the Minister will give us some explanation. A £40,000 dining room must be going to accommodate a fairly big staff. I want to know why this estimate has been revised. Has the staff increased? Could not the dinner have been worked in shifts and the original dining room retained?. If there has been an increase in the staff, perhaps it will be in order for the Minister to tell us. I think that covers the points that I wished to raise. I think at a time when economy is so essential, if we can have some makeshift arrangement to carry us over the next few years, and the period of construction postponed in the present circumstances, it would be of great advantage to the taxpayers.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I did not rise at the outset of this Debate because I saw my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. G. Locker-Lamp-son) had a notice down for the reduction of the Vote.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I divided the House upon the last Vote, but I do not want to divide upon this Vote.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will deal briefly with the points which have been put to me. I hope hon. Members will not accuse me on this occasion of going too closely into details. As a result of the very grave industrial depression in which we have been for a long time, it has been necessary for the State to try and mitigate the situation by unemployment insurance. The Committee will remember that in 1920 the Insurance Act raised the number of persons compulsorily insured to 12 millions. Then we had the Act of December last, and a further amending Act followed on the 3rd of March this
year. It is these successive extensions of insurance which have compelled me to ask for the Vote now before the Committee, because they have thrown a very heavy burden upon the employment exchanges service.
Concurrently with these very large extensions raising the number of insured persons from 4,000,000 to 12,000,000 we have been running into further trade depression. In November last we had 500,000 people registered as unemployed. On the 1st April the total was 1,500,000, and now on the 15th April you have nearly 1,750,000 registered as totally unemployed. In addition to this, on the 15th April, you have 964,000 persons working short time. I want to say here how much we are indebted to the employment exchanges service for having done the increased work in this direction so loyally, efficiently, and willingly. I know there have been long queues waiting to register and to receive their unemployment benefit, but to mitigate this hardship all that has been humanly possible has been done. The growing amount of unemployment and the wide extension of insurance have been met by the Labour Exchanges service loyally and successfully, but it has been hindered by the cry of economy. We had last year a very close inquiry into the work of these Exchanges by a very able Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. G. Barnes). We have taken very many of the recommendations of that Committee into careful consideration, some of them have been implemented, and some of them we are now examining. With regard to the question of accommodation that brings me precisely to this Vote and the reason for it. The Committee reported as follows:
We have received evidence from unofficial witnesses to the effect that many of the existing employment exchange premises are such as seriously to hamper the efficient working of the Exchange.
After rehearsing the character of that evidence, the Committee go on to say:
Our own inspection of a number of the Exchanges confirms these complaints in general. We find that in very many cases the premises now used for employment exchange work are unsuitable. We wish to record our emphatic opinion that the use of unsuitable buildings for employment exchanges is not an economy, and moreover, efficient work cannot be secured if, as in a number of centres at the present time, the work of an employment exchange is carried
out in three, four or five different sets of premises in a single town. We recommend that such premises should be centralised.
That Report reached me on the 10th November, 1920. Since then the position in all respects has grown worse by the growing unemployment week by week. I could have come to the Committee and asked it to make permanent provision for these exchanges on the basis of this-emergency. I have not done that, but throughout I have endeavoured to meet the emergency by emergency provisions. I have referred to the position in passing, and I felt it my duty to make reference to the very heavy amount of work done in the last eight months, in the face very often of most unfair and often hostile criticism. Leaving all the exceptional character of the times out of consideration, however, this has to be faced. You have to recognise the facts, first, that the extension of the Unemployment Insurance Act to a further 8,000,000 people has permanently increased, and must permanently increase the work of the exchanges. At the same time there has been no increase in the facilities for carrying on the work, many of which, on the testimony of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals, were already wholly insufficient at the time. In deference to the Committee s wish last year that the expenditure on buildings at this time must be kept within the narrowest possible limit, I went through the Estimate provision for 1920–21, which had already been-submitted, very carefully indeed, item by item, and a revised Estimate for these buildings was prepared and submitted. The revision showed a reduction on the-year's requirements for exchange buildings from £529,800 to £464,700. Even that account is being carefully watched, and we are making shift, as we are bound to-do, in view of the stringency of finance. Even that revised Estimate was not fully expended, and, roughly, £146,000 of it wills be surrendered to the Treasury as unexpended at the close of the year.
As regards these Estimates for 1921–22, in view of the urgent need for economy, I desire that the Committee should be reassured that these requisitions for which? I am now asking have been framed with-the utmost regard for economy and represent the lowest possible minimum. In some cases I find I cannot renew tenancies-for premises, and I am bound to look
about for new accommodation. I shall do that in the most economical way, leasing or purchasing existing buildings rather than building new premises. Wherever possible we shall make whatever provision is necessary by way of temporary hutments. There are six cases only in these Estimates in which I am asking for provision of permanent buildings. I am going to give them in detail, as I must justify asking for any money at this time for permanent buildings. Of the £498,600 required for premises of various kinds, the largest item is undoubtedly that in connection with the Claims and Record Office at Kew. Kew is the administrative centre of the Unemployment Insurance scheme, the amount already spent on the extension of the Claims and Record Office is £53,800, and the further amount required for this year is now estimated at £178,100, a total estimate of £312,650 for the extension. That is wholly a reflex of recent legislation in regard to the extension of unemployment insurance.

Mr. HOGGE: How much has been spent on Kew?

Dr. MACNAMARA: £53,800 is the amount already expended on the extension. The further amount required this year is £178,100 and that will make a total expenditure of £312,650. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the £35,000 required to complete the cost of providing the dining-room at Kew. He said that it might very well be because of the extension of the staff. The staff was 800, and again, owing to the wide extension of unemployment insurance, it is now 3,000. No increase has been made to the dining-room accommodation beyond the erection of a small hut. I have been there several times, and I felt compelled, in consideration of the great increase of the staff, to set down and put to the Treasury and now to the Committee the addition which I propose to the dining-room accommodation.
The other most considerable item in the Vote is £120,000 for additional accommodation for employment exchanges. That is on the top of page 36 of the Estimates. It refers to a reserve provision. We might find ourselves con fronted during the year with notice to quit from a number of landlords. We have already had to hire temporarily
here and there a church, a Sunday-school, and a chapel building to meet the increasing pressure of unemployment in a number of cases, rather than permitting numbers of people to wait outside in inclement weather in order to secure their unemployment pay. That provision takes the place of a provision which used to be made lower down on page 36 of the Estimates, against which there are no figures at all, under the heading " Urgent Unforeseen Works."

Mr. HOGGE: What was it last year?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It was £127,955 last year. I turn to the detailed proposals regarding Employment Exchanges. That total comes up, and the figure will not be found except by addition, to £165,500. There was not a case, I can assure the Committee, where my hon. Friend and I did not believe that the measures were absolutely necessary. There is a provision of £15,000 odd asked for in respect of premises at Brighton, Borough, S.E., and other places. We also propose to spend £19,500 on the erection of temporary buildings or hutments at Hanley, Nottingham, Wigan, Maryhill, and East Ham, and also a sum of £5,000 for the extension of accommodation at Edinburgh. There is a further sum of £32,715 in connection with minor works in different districts.
I come to the permanent buildings. The Committee are entitled to be satisfied, because of the ultimate liability involved, that these proposals are justified. In the six cases a total of £93,200 is asked for in the current year, and the total expenditure in all the six cases when completed will be £443,500. Take the case of the Leeds Exchanges. At present they are in five different sets of premises and the work is very much handicapped. It cannot be carried on indefinitely on that basis. We made an attempt without success to rent suitable premises, but eventually acquired a site for £37,000. Including that amount, it is estimated that the cost will be £123,000, of which only £33,000 is taken in the present financial year. On the 1st of April there were registered as unemployed in Leeds 17,520. The next case is that of Leicester. There we have at present temporary premises held under the Defence of the Realm Act, which may have to be surrendered, and which, too, are not at all suitable for the business. We cannot get suitable accom-
modation by renting it or purchasing it. There were 11,204 persons unemployed on the register on the 1st of April. We purchased a site for £4,500, and the provision towards the erection of permanent buildings this year is £10,000. At New-castle-on-Tyne we are providing permanent buildings for the employment exchange and for Divisional Offices. The existing premises are held on a tenancy, but may be required by the owner at any time for demolition. The exchanges are in temporary quarters at the Assembly Rooms, and we shall have to give these up. The Divisional Office staff is spread over two sets of premises, both of which are unsuitable and inadequate. We cannot get other premises which are suitable, although we have done our best. A site has been bought for £19,600, and in last year's Estimate a sum of £45,195 was provided.

Mr. WISE: Where is the site.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot answer at the moment. The Vote in this financial year is for £20,000, which will leave a balance of £147,050 to be provided in future years, the total cost being £188,500. The number of persons registered in Newcastle as unemployed on the 1st April was 5,394. I can only say that this building is absolutely essential for the reasonably smooth and prompt working of the Exchanges.

Major BARNES: What about the £10,000 for temporary huts?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have already spent that on temporary hut accommodation, and when this new permanent building is complete, that expenditure will come to an end.

Major BARNES: But why cannot you carry on in these huts for two or three years longer?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have endeavoured to spread the work over a considerable time. The work of the Exchanges is being done under very unfair conditions indeed, but I certainly will look into this case of Newcastle again.

Mr. HOGGE: You are spending £60,000 at Leicester, where there are 11,000 unemployed, while at Newcastle-on-Tyne you are spending over £180,000, with only 5,000 unemployed.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have given the figures, but I do not think you can judge the expenditure by the number of unemployed at a particular time. The building at Newcastle has not yet been commenced, and I would point out that we are there providing not only for Exchanges, but for Divisional Offices, whereas at Leicester we are only providing Exchanges.

Major BARNES: According to the Estimate the sum is asked for the erection of buildings for Divisional Offices and Employment Exchanges, and the same terms are applied to the Vote for temporary buildings. The two things seem to be exactly the same, and what was in my mind was that as you had already provided for temporary accommodation, and you were now seeking to replace it by permanent accommodation, the temporary accommodation might be made to serve a little longer.

Dr. MACNAMARA: We did not proceed with the huts except those which were to take the place of the assembly rooms in case we are turned out. But I repeat, this is not the last word on the matter. I will look into it again and see whether we can go on with the original proposals and make use of the temporary huts for the time being.
With regard to Govan, which is the fourth of these cases, the need for accommodation there has been fully recognised, and was fully recognised as far back as 1912, when a site was acquired for the purpose at a perpetual feu of £54 per annum. The search for suitable alternative premises has been made repeatedly, but without success. The site is not sufficient to accommodate a temporary hut, and the erection there of a temporary hut is therefore impracticable. The provision in the Vote is for a permanent building. There is a re-vote of £10,000 due to the commencement of building being delayed. I delayed it pending the report of the Committee on Employment Exchanges to which I have already referred. I have received most urgent representations from Glasgow in connection with this case, and also that of Partick, which is the fifth of these cases. At Partick the premises are quite inadequate, and we have temporary premises in the church hall.
There, again, search has been made for years for suitable buildings for the work,
but without success. Partick was included in last year's Estimate, and funds were provided for it, but we did not proceed. The matter has been postponed, so that we might see what line, as regards the future of these Exchanges, the Committee—of which my hon. and gallant Friend was a member—might think best. Steps are being taken to see whether temporary buildings can be erected with advantage at Partick, and, if so, there will be a considerable reduction of the estimated expenditure. Otherwise the estimated cost, including site and buildings, will be £25,000, of which £14,200 is required during the current year and £10,200 is a re-vote. At Partick, on the 1st April, 3,944 persons were registered as unemployed. The final case is that of Port Talbot. At present the buildings there are entirely inadequate, and in any case we are under notice to leave. The case has pretty much the features which I have described in the other cases. The estimated total cost is £22,000, of which £6,000 is now asked for.
I have tried to dissect from this Vote the permanent cases, because they involve, ultimately, considerable expenditure, and to justify the request I have made to the Committee. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) asked for some particulars of cases arising out of the War. The Vote in that connection is for buildings and factories for the training of disabled and demobilised soldiers. As my hon. Friend knows any man, who is prevented by his War service from resuming his pre-War occupation, can come to us and ask to be admitted to a course of training in one of the many crafts for which we have men entered. Up to the present time we have trained 40,000 men in these Government instructional factories and in other buildings—some which we have ourselves acquired, and many which have been lent to us by the educational authorities. The assistance which has been given to us by those authorities, notably in Edinburgh, but also in many other places has been very great, not only in regard to lending buildings, but in sending to us expert teachers, whose aid has been invaluable. We select a man of high disability for a calling which does not involve heavy physical toil, such as basket making, watch and clock making, light leatherwork, French polishing, and so on. Where the disability is not so
great, the men are trained in building operations and occupations of a like nature,

Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those men are passing into employment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Apart from the recent depression, the great bulk of those men found employment, and were doing very well. Undoubtedly they have suffered like the rest of the industrial community because of the depression which has been running now for several months. There is no doubt that the training we gave them did enable them to go into their new callings and earn a decent living. I may say that, in furniture work, for instance, to take a case with which my hon. Friend is familiar, everyone who has seen their work marvels at the very high pitch of efficiency which these wounded men, with great pluck and determination, have been able to reach. We have 25,000 now in training, and there are 16,000 whose names are still upon the list awaiting admission. We cannot admit them as quickly as we should wish, because we have to consult the trade unions and the employers, who have to have regard to the possibility of ultimate employment in deciding upon the numbers which they I can agree with us shall be admitted. Just now it is not surprising that both trade unionists and employers are in clined to make the bounds of admission very narrow indeed, because of the depression; but, if I may say so, the trade unions as a whole have behaved—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but I must do so, because I should have to stop other hon. Members who went into that subject.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I apologise. I was led to say that by the request of my hon. Friend, but I quite agree that it is out of order. I am afraid that if I began to tell the Committee about the building trades, which my hon. Friend perhaps expected me to do, I should again be quite out of order.

Mr. HOGGE: On that point of Order. I have some experience of the House, and know what arises on these Votes, but may I put it to you, Sir Edwin, that the Minister has just stated that there are 16,000 men awaiting training? This is a Vote
for building, and surely we are entitled, if there is not sufficient accommodation, to urge the Government to spend more money in buildings for these 16,000 men; and surely, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to make out a case why the present buildings are sufficient? Unless he can make out a case that they are sufficient to train the 25,000 men who are under training and the 16,000 who are waiting, surely we are entitled to discuss that point?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is certainly entitled to discuss the necessity and desirability of more accommodation, if that is considered to be necessary. All that I said was that it would not be in order now to discuss the value of the work done by these men, the number of the men, and the attitude of the trade unions and of the employers. That was what the right hon. Gentleman was saying when I interrupted him.

Mr. HOGGE: I only wanted to know with regard to the men who are awaiting training. It is now nearly three years after the Armistice, and the House of Commons should put itself right with those men. I do not want the men outside to say that, when we have the opportunity of discussing this in Committee, we are letting them down, and I was rather hoping that on that account, if there were any kind of latitude that could be allowed, a discussion might take place which would convince the men outside that no further accommodation was required.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought I had allowed that latitude. I only intervened when the right hon. Gentleman was going too far away from the question.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I apologise. My hon. Friend's question led me further than I should have gone. On the question of buildings, we have buildings enough. We do not want any further building accommodation. The difficulty arises that we have vacancies in a particular locality which could not reasonably be expected to take men of that class. It is not a question of building, but rather of the industrial depression at the moment.

Mr. LORDEN: I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Barnes), but this time I find myself in considerable
agreement with him, because here we have a very huge building programme, which I claim to know something about, and it seems to me that by deferring a considerable quantity of this building that you are proposing to do during the coming year, you would undoubtedly get it done at a very much lower price in the near future. They are pledged to spend £993,685, which is the difference between the original Estimate and the revised Estimate. You have to do a sum to get to it. It is a pity these things are not put in, so that we can see, without having to go into these calculations, what is the real amount. I think the country cannot afford this expenditure, however desirable it may be. The Minister has made out a wonderfully good case in regard to people standing in the wet. We sympathise very greatly with those people, but if he goes on spending there will be a great many more standing in the wet. It is obvious that they have had to add considerably to their numbers on account of the increased cost of building. That is very largely why you get these revised total Estimates. Take the extension of the Edinburgh employment exchange. It has gone up nearly double, from £6,500 to £12,500. It is an appalling increase. The right hon. Gentleman has said he will take into consideration whether they cannot hold their hand with regard to Newcastle. Cannot he hold his hand with regard to a few more? A few more hundred thousand pounds held up would probably enable some people to live and not have to come on to this fund, and that is what we really want. I merely wish to emphasise what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, and see whether we cannot get the right hon. Gentleman to stay his hand as much as possible.

Major NALL: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £35,000.
10.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman very conveniently wound up with a reference to the training of ex-service men. With that part of he Vote I do not suppose hon. Members would be disposed to quibble in any way, but it is not good enough to suggest that the virtues of that side of the Ministry should condone all the vices of the rest of it. Reference was made to
Kew. £35,000 is asked for for a dining-room for the staff, which has had to be increased to meet the existing abnormal state of affairs from 800 to 3,000. The Minister said he had gone into things very carefully, and considered it was necessary, but is it really absolutely necessary at this time, groaning under taxation as the country is, to build dining-rooms at a cost of £40,000 for a temporary staff? The whole spirit behind these Estimates of the Ministry of Labour discloses an extraordinary lack of any desire for real economy. When my right hon. Friend says he has gone over these Estimates with the idea of reducing them to the lowest possible figure, having regard to the need for economy, one wonders what on earth they would be if he thought there was no need for economy. Here we are, with unemployment at a most abnormally high figure, and in spite of all the difficulties the Minister referred to here he is asking for money for enormous extensions in order to deal with a normally low figure when we again get back to it. I really cannot see the necessity for this expenditure on building at its present cost. The whole policy is really at the root of this expenditure. Here we are voting money for new buildings to deal with unemployment before we really know that the present figures of unemployment are genuine figures. Reference has been made in other Debates to different classes of people who are drawing out-of-work benefit when many hon. Members and thousands of people in the country think they might well find occupation in other callings. Only these last few days I have seen queues of women waiting outside these places where the accommodation is alleged to be inadequate, in fur coats and silk stockings for their 16s. a week. It is not more accommodation for these people that is wanted. It is not more accommodation for staffs to check their accounts and add up their cards that is wanted. It is a sterner handling of their claims and a refusal to pay 16s. a week to people who can very well go out and earn it for themselves. Therefore I have no sympathy whatever with Votes of this description.

Sir J. D. REES: Will my right hon. Friend look at the item—"Nottingham: Purchase of site and erection of temporary premises for Employment Exchange, £5,600" to complete the Service1? It is
not out of any jealousy that I ask this question. The less money that is spent upon exchanges the better pleased I shall be. It is for information I ask. Why does Nottingham have temporary premises? Others—Port Talbot, Edinburgh, Glasgow, for instance—have permanent premises. If these are temporary premises costing £16,600, it would appear rather expensive. I do not understand the distinction. The amount remaining on these Nottingham premises for which the Vote is now required is £5,600. If the original Estimate was made at anything like the building prices obtaining some time back, it is quite certain it cannot be completed for anythng like £5,600, because the cost of building is at least double what it was quite recently. If my right hon. Friend would explain why some are temporary and some are permanent premises, though I raise no objection whatsoever to Nottingham having temporary premises, and if he could say whether there is a reasonable expectation that the balance now voted in a case like that is really likely to be sufficient for completion, seeing what present prices are, I should be greatly obliged to him.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Major Nail) charges me with being wasteful, and he is succeeded immediately by my hon. Friend behind who asks why I make temporary provision at Nottingham. Out of the spirit of real economy. At Nottingham we received notice to quit premises, and our temporary premises being unsuitable, we took a site upon which we are erecting huts as being, for the time being, the most economical provision we can make.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I listened with great care and attention to the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the Committee, in the hope that I should feel quite convinced that I could support this Estimate. I regret to say his explanation left me entirely cold, and I came to the conclusion that the whole scheme of the Ministry of Labour in regard to the buildings is based upon a chronic state of unemployment. I think that is borne out by the table -which is presented, which gives the allocation of the expenditure distributed over the various years. We have the amount shown for 1921–22, and
we have in the next column the further amount required for completing the service after the financial year 1921–22. If we cast our eyes over the table we see Leeds, for instance, where to complete the unemployment exchange building there is a sum of £53,000 to be spent after the end of this financial year. We are to get through this abnormal year with what, I suppose, we all believe to be the most abnormal condition of unemployment with which we have ever been faced in the history of the country, and with which, we believe, we shall ever be faced in the future. Yet this building is not to be finished and ready to deal with this service until after the expiration of the present financial year. Surely it is possible to get through this abnormal period with the temporary accommodation we have, and, if we can do that, surely we shall not need to provide for a chronic state of unemployment in excess of the present condition.
I can follow up many of the items in the same manner. At Glasgow (Govan), after the end of the present financial year, there is an expenditure of £14,900. At Newcastle, £147,050 is to be expended after the expiration of the current financial year. All this is to be incurred to enable us to deal with the unemployment problem which is abnormal now, and which, if we are ever to regain our commercial prosperity, will surely cease before these buildings can be completed. I feel deeply and sincerely that one of the greatest contributory causes of unemployment at the present moment is the activity of the Ministry of Labour, the multiplicity of buildings and the staffing of buildings such as these with people who have nothing else to do but to keep active on unemployment problems. So long as you have this vast number of buildings throughout the country staffed with an army of people who are concerned only with the problem of unemployment, you will have nothing but a huge manufactory of unemployment. I. therefore, protest against such a Vote as this, and support the Motion for the reduction.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Minister of Labour referred to the findings of the Unemployment Exchanges Inquiry Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, and it is quite true, as he stated, that the recommendation of
that Committee, after making very careful inquiries, investigating places and examining a large number of witnesses, was that the present system was by no means economical, that you had your buildings scattered over various parts of towns, and different Departments working apart from others, which meant a considerably extra cost in administration, as well as in rent, than would occur if the buildings were centralised and put under one head. Leeds has been referred to. We found the cost of the rents of the five departments in Leeds was more than one properly organised central body would be. In a large number of other cases also we found there was a wasteful expense, because office accommodation was unsatisfactory, and that the real economy would be to get buildings that were suitable and not such as were used in too many cases. Hon. Members have referred to these Estimates as being based on an abnormal condition of unemployment. But surely they must have misunderstood entirely what the Minister said, because we had evidence given before us at the Committee that the whole building programme, the whole extension of exchanges, had been held up a considerable time pending the Report which that Committee might make. The Government were uncertain whether the Committee would report that there was no need of labour exchanges in the future, and therefore the work of extending exchanges and of building operations was held up for some months, if not a year or two, pending this Report. Consequently, there is a leeway to make up, and, apart from the abnormal condition of unemployment to-day, and unless I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, the figures he submitted are not based on abnormal unemployment, but on the average unemployment which occurred in years gone by, and may occur in future.
There is a further point to remember, that under the Act which this House passed the number of insured people has increased by nearly 8,000,000, and that has trebled the work of the exchanges. Therefore, provision has to be made in these Estimates for that. The Minister referred to the fact that we did recommend unanimously, or with one exception, that it would be more economy in the end, if we are to have labour exchanges, and the House has settled that,
to work them on the most economical lines, and true economy lay in having buildings suitable to deal with the problem. Reference has been made to Kew. We found there centralised in one building five or six local centres which had previously dealt with claims and allowances. Judging by the questions which are put in the House, complaints are made because of delay in the payment of unemployment benefit and in dealing with claims. That is because of the inadequate accommodation for dealing with the work of the claims department and for settling things expeditiously. The Committee found that if we are to have labour exchanges and unemployment insurance we require bigger accommodation at Kew—I am-not referring to the dining-room—in order to deal expeditiously and satisfactorily with the claims that come forward.
Our report, while recommending on matters of policy that these buildings should be enlarged in many cases, and more suitable ones taken, also recommended that under the present circumstances, wherever possible, these permanent alterations should be postponed. Therefore, while on the general policy I agree with what the Minister said, I think there is good ground for carrying out what he has offered to do at Newcastle, namely, to consider whether it is not possible to defer spending these large sums of money, nearly £500,000 this year, and meaning another £500,000 more to complete the scheme in years to come. A sum of £443,500 is the expenditure upon which we are embarking this year, of which £93,000 will be spent this year, and, in addition, there are several hundred thousands. Following the recommendations of the Committee, is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to stay his hand in regard to some of the cases which he says he has cut down to the irreducible minimum, and by a more extensive use of Army huts to get over the more immediate difficulties, and post pone the more immediate expenditure until costs are less. Moreover, the demand for houses is so great at the present time that all the labour and materials that are available should be used for rectifying the housing problem rather than in putting up expensive Labour Exchanges. While the right hon. Gentleman is only carrying out the
recommendations of the Committee, and while it is sound economy in the end to have more efficient buildings, the question does arise whether now is the time to embark upon these permanent buildings, and whether, wherever possible, they should not be postponed until costs are less and other needs are not so clamant.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): Several points have been raised which it is desirable to answer. Complaints have been raised with regard to Kew. I do not know whether people realise the difficulties at Kew or the immensity of the work that is being carried on there. I wish those hon. Members who complain of the money that is being spent at Kew would allow me the pleasure of conducting them to Kew to see what is being carried on there. They would then realise the immensity of the work and the difficulties under which that work is being done. There are at the moment some 16,000,000 files of cases which have to be handled. An immense number of files of course is due to the Insurance Act of 1920 and the staff has had to be increased to deal with that immense number of files. The original staff which was some 800 has had to be increased to 3,000. That is not due to the present lamentable emergency of unemployment, but to the permanent increase required by the Unemployment Insurance Act of last year. Does the hon. Member for Manchester suggest repealing the Insurance Act?

Major NALL: My Amendment deals solely with what I consider to be an entirely unnecessary dining room.

Sir M. BARLOW: As my hon. Friend does not answer the question, I take it that he does not desire to repeal the Insurance Act. If he does not, he must have a staff to carry it out, and the immense increase of work has caused the staff to be increased from 800 to 3,000. If you have this increase of staff, you must have some place to feed them. Unfortunately, there are no facilities in the neighbourhood, and you must feed them somehow, and in view of this fact the increased dining-room premises has become essential. As he has said that there is no desire for economy I will not weary the Committee with reading, as I
could, instances of the difficulty which there is of conducting the work at the exchanges, and even the real dangers to the staff in some of the existing premises. In one case, No. 10, Wigan, there is evidence of complaints by the local committee of accidents happening to the staff because the premises are so unsuitable, the stairs are so steep, and so on, and difficulties of actual physical exit arise in consequence. I could give a great many more, but I will not labour that because all the evidence was put before the Committee on which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) served with excellent skill and diligence.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) and the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden) raised the point that you were not entitled to take a period of great temporary unemployment like the present and treat it as if it were a permanent condition of things. That never has been the policy. My right hon. Friend was most careful in his speech to distinguish between the permanent necessities of Employment Exchanges due partly to normal unemployment and partly to the Insurance Act from the present great strain of unemployment with the figures running into a couple of millions. In dealing with heavy emergencies we have resorted to temporary expedients and have had recourse to schoolrooms and any possible buildings. Quite apart from the great temporary strain of unemployment, there is a permanent work for these exchanges to do, and that has been recognised by the Committee of Inquiry. I have here some figures showing under the head of registrations a permanent and steady increase of applications at the registries from 1911 to 1921. The number was 2,000,000 in 1911 and 4,000,000 last year. It is true that in 1919 there was a great temporary change in the figures owing to demobilisation, but apart from that one year the figures have mounted steadily. That figure of registration does indicate, if proof were necessary, the permanent and steadily growing usefulness of the Exchanges. When to that you add the immense burden of work caused by the Unemployment Insurance Act, it is obvious that some steady and permanent provision has to be made for exchange buildings. With regard to the permanent buildings, what has been urged in
criticism will be present to the mind of my right hon. Friend and myself. He has given an undertaking that we will reconsider even the six permanent cases and see what can be done on the lines of the criticism we have heard.

Major HILLS: The speech to which we have just listened, though it goes a certain way to meet the criticism, does not go far enough. The real point is this: Even if you prove that it is for the public advantage that you should have buildings that are modernised and up to date and convenient as offices, you have not made out a case for building them now. It may be a much better thing to spend more money on staff now and to postpone your capital expenditure until a time when money is more easy to obtain, when costs are lower and building labour is less precious. Surely of all times this is the worst time to go in for capital building, when we want every man in the building trade to build our houses. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson), and if he will excuse me for saying so, I think the end of his speech contradicted the first part of it. He began by saying that this expenditure was entirely authorised, and I understood him to close by protesting that it should be put off. That applied especially to the enormous Estimate here for the extension of the Claims and Record Office, Kew, £312,000, and besides that there is a Vote of £40,000 for a dining-room for the staff of the Claims and Record Office. I do not suppose that Kew Palace cost as much as £40,000 to build. The sort of building that you will get for £40,000 I cannot conceive; I cannot bring my imagination up to that height. I hope the Committee will accept the offer made by the Parliamentary Secretary and go to Kew to see this dining-room. It is a grandiose scheme. I have never heard of the spending of £40,000 on a dining-room. Assume that it is a good thing that you should have convenient buildings; assume also that unemployment insurance is to be a permanent charge on the State; assume that all these items are for buildings that you will require in normal times. I am still not convinced that the Ministry have made out their case for spending the money now. We shall look rather ridiculous if we who
preach economy vote £40,000 for a dining-room. This I must say to the Ministry, that the only chance we seem to have of effecting economy is to vote against it. I do not wish to vote against it at all, but I think enormous Estimates of this character are not really justified.

Sir W. PEARCE: I should like to submit to the Minister one fact which I do not think has been taken into account. If I am any judge of the working-class attitude, the unemployed benefit will become more and more payable through the trades unions and not through the Labour Exchanges. If I read the working-class mind aright, they entirely object to these payments being made through the Labour Exchanges, and as time proceeds the Labour Exchanges will be to a greater and greater extent relieved of this duty. I believe this will add to the power of the trades unions, because as the years roll by they will receive a largely increased membership, for the reason that the ordinary working man objects to go to a Labour Exchange to get this unemployment benefit. I therefore think the Ministry might very well have taken into account the fact that the duties of the Exchanges in this respect are likely to diminish rather than increase, and there should be a good deal of hesitation before undertaking heavy permanent expenses at the present time.

Mr. HOGGE: I should like first of all, on behalf of the other Members of the Committee, to accept the invitation which the right hon. Gentleman has extended to us that we should lunch with him in his dining room at Kew. With regard to the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills), be expresses a view with which I can sympathise, because I have been in the same state of mind before now. He does not like to vote against the Government on a Vote of this kind. I think, however, it is an unfortunate thing that in Committee like this we should not vote against the Government and defeat the Government. I am a political opponent of the Government but I should never imagine it to be the duty of the Government to resign their whole functions because they had been defeated in Committee on Supply. I should think it was the last thing in the world for them to do, although I
should gladly see them out of power altogether, from other points of view. [Laughter.] I am quite serious in what I am suggesting now. So far as the Opposition is concerned, I think nobody imagines for a moment that the Government would resign if they were beaten on a Vote of this character. If we took that view in Committee, I think we could keep the Government up to scratch on a great many of these Estimates.
In spite of the discussion we have had and in spite of the explanations we have had, there has not been any justification for the spending of a great deal of this money. If my right hon. Friend will look at page 34 and take the first permanent case there—the case of Brighton—he will see that for the adaptation of new premises for employment exchange the original sum estimated is £4,000. Then the original sum estimated for the alterations and extensions of huts at East Ham is £3,725 or £275 less than the adaptation of a permanent building. Surely that is ridiculous—that in Brighton it is going to cost £4,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "£5,000."]—I am taking the original estimate—for dealing with a permanent building and in East Ham we are going to spend nearly the same amount of money on alterations and extensions to huts. I am not a builder and know nothing at all about the cost of permanent buildings as compared with temporary buildings, but as a member of the Committee when I look at these two figures I am inclined to think that, surely, there must be something wrong there. In a seaside resort like Brighton, where sites and buildings are extraordinarily valuable, you can get, for an original estimate of £4,000, a permanent building or adaptation, whereas in East Ham it will cost the same amount of money to play about with wooden huts. In regard to the dining room at Kew, in the name of common sense why should it be the duty of the Government to provide a dining room for 3,000 of its employés? How many men and women who go to their work every day in the City of London have got to find their own meals?

Mr. SUGDEN: The great industrial firms in the North do not do that.

Mr. HOGGE: There are some firms which, under schemes of welfare, provide
dining accommodation for their employes. I myself was attached to a big firm in the North of England, where we could dine 10,000 of our employes at one time, but it is a very different thing a private firm making arrangements for its own accommodation and the State spending money on well-paid employes at places like Kew. Surely to goodness, if there are going to be 3,000 Government employes in permanent employment at Kew, as a result of the Government's insurance scheme, private enterprise will follow, those 3,000 employes to Kew, and will establish sufficient accommodation for them to get their own meals. It is ridiculous, when the Government are claiming to exercise economy, to ask this Committee to spend £40,000 on a service of this kind, which can be adequately met in another way. Therefore, I invite hon. Members who are not prepared to accept the kind of defence we have had from my right hon. Friend, to vote for the reduction of the Vote.
I want to make a point about the differentiation in the amount of expenditure. The Minister said that in Leicester they were spending on the original estimate £60,000, and in Newcastle £188,000, or three times the amount in Newcastle that they were spending in Leicester, and on his own figures there were twice the number unemployed in Leicester that there were in Newcastle at that date. The reason my right hon. Friend used the figure of 11,000 unemployed in Leicester was to justify the £60,000. The real solution of this question is the one that has been put by several hon. Members. This is not the time to build permanent buildings, and there is enough material left over from the War to make temporary accommodation. It is the duty of the Government to make that temporary accommodation and to save these permanent charges, and if they have no other case to make than that they are prepared to go on with permanent buildings, it is the duty of this Committee to support the reduction of the Vote.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The original Estimate to which reference has been made by hon. Friends opposite was £529,800. I invited criticism, and have gone through the Estimate item by item, and submitted a new Estimate of £464,700.

Mr. HOGGE: Very good, but not good enough.

Dr. MACNAMARA: And even that amount we shall not fully expend. We shall return about £146,000 of it to the Treasury. In many of these cases the premises, on the testimony of the Committee, of which my hon. Friend was a member, were found to be really deplorable. There is no dispute about that. Hon. Members and others have spoken about the need for proper provision being made for the unemployed, and of long queues of poor people standing about in inclement weather waiting to register; and something had to be done. I took the greatest care, as I think my hon. Friend will agree, to explain this estimate in the most close detail, as I considered was my duty to the Committee.

Mr. HOGGE: I think you have done your best.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I went through the six permanent cases. It has been put to us that this is not the time, if we can possibly avoid it, to go in for permanent buildings, but that it is right and proper to make use of such temporary provision as we have as long as possible. I will undertake to go through these six cases again with the closest care, and if I can possibly make shift—that is what it comes to, there is no doubt about it!—by carrying on in such temporary accommodation, I will do it.
With regard to the case pf Kew—or rather Kew Gardens, because I do not think that at Kew the people could get the food they want—there we have got the whole administration of the unemployment insurance benefit. The building is not in touch with any shops of any kind. I very much doubt whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh suggests, the need is there and demand would be followed by the supply. I am doubtful, but I will go with the greatest pleasure with him and let him have a look at it. We had 800 people there, but with the extension of insured persons from 4,000,000 to 12,000,000, we have extension of the staff, and then at present there is the increase in unemployment to be dealt with. There is really no accommodation in which food could be got except the premises in that locality. My hon. Friend can judge of that himself if he goes. I do not see that really how the employés can get away from Kew for their meals. I think I am bound to make provision for them.
Again, however, I will take note of what the Committee has said. I will look over the six cases of permanent buildings, as I have said, and if we can possibly make shift with the temporary accommodation, we will do so, as we do in so many other cases. As regards Kew Gardens, I am bound to make some provision for dining, because these buildings are a considerable distance away from the places where these people can get food. I will, however, give the Committee this assurance, that I will reconsider the question of dining-room accommodation.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw this Estimate to-night on the understanding from the Committee that when he puts it down again if he gives us a satisfactory explanation we will pass the Vote without further discussion?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would carry out my undertaking. As regards the permanent buildings, I am prepared to give the assurance that one of them shall be proceeded with further without the previous sanction of the Committee. I have six permanent buildings here in this Vote, and if we can possibly make shift without them we will do so. If I withdraw this Vote I shall not be able to proceed with certain temporary provision which I cannot wait for.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is quite possible for the Minister to withdraw a portion of this Estimate. I am not casting any aspersion on the word of the Minister, but we ought not to pass a Vote on the assumption that in certain circumstances it will not be spent. There are only two courses, one is to vote against the Government and the other is to make a substantial reduction in the Vote and ask for a smaller sum.

Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will not start any of the permanent buildings without the sanction of the Committee. May I point out that there is no Parliamentary form which enables him to get that sanction.

Sir F. BANBURY: A great many things can be done in this respect. It is perfectly easy to put down a Motion that the Eleven o'Clock Rule shall not apply to certain things.

Mr. C. WHITE: I want to make a practical suggestion in reference to Kew. I am sure that the Minister in charge of these Estimates, with his usual enterprise and sympathy, is quite willing to accept something of this sort. Is it not possible to enlist the services of the Kitchen Committee of the House, and to ask them to visit Kew, so that, with their very wide experiences, they can recommend something in this direction. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has said, "Why should it be the duty of the Government to provide dining accommodation for the employés at Kew? "I might ask him," "Why is it the duty of the Government to provide dining accommodation for highly-paid Members of Parliament, which it does?" The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Kitchen Committee. If, with his wide experience, he were accompanied by all the other members of the Committee, I am sure some valuable suggestions would be made.
I notice that the revised Estimates are increased in every particular except on page 38, under letter M, for "services arising out of the War." In that case they are reduced. This Estimate provides for the training of ex-service men and of women, and the provision of accommodation for the training of discharged soldiers and sailors suffering from tuberculosis. I had the privilege of going round to these training centres last summer, and we had, to end it off, a very pleasant luncheon at Richmond, which was a very enjoyable part of the proceedings. Is it from the sole standpoint of economy that these Estimates for this particular service have been reduced? There is no Estimate that comes before us which ought to be reduced less hastily than that which provides for this particular work. I am a tradesman myself, and I watched very closely the various trades which these men and women learned there. There is no better work done by any Government Department. I have never voted for the Government since I have been in Parliament except on about three occasions, because I do not think they deserve my vote, but I can say with regard to the training of these men that the work is done very efficiently. Yet the revised Estimate is reduced. We should, at any rate, give credit where credit is due.
I heard the hon. Member who moved the reduction of this Vote by £35,000 talk about women with fur coats and silk stockings standing in queues to draw their 16s. a week. I want to tell him, with all respect, that it is all piffle talking like that. He has never stood in a queue himself, but many of us have, both for food and for work. We know what we are talking about, and it is time we gave over talking like that. With regard to these Estimates, while whatever reduction is possible ought to be made, it is not altogether wise to reduce to any

extent the Estimate which provides for the training of these men. I know that there are many on the waiting list at the present time. If the reduction of the Estimate result in more coming on to the waiting list, I shall be sorry that it has been reduced. If this be put to a Vote, I, for one, shall vote for the Government.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £907,350, be granted for the said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 153.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Atkey, A. R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hills, Major John Waller
Norrls, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hogge, James Myles
Pearce, Sir William


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Poison, Sir Thomas


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cautley, Henry S.
Johnstone, Joseph
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchln)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newlngton)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Kenworthy, Lieut. -Commander J, M.
Sugden, W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kenyon, Barnet
Sykes, Sir Charles(Huddersfield)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Thomas, Brig. -Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Wallace, J.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
White, Lieut.-Col. G, D. (Southport)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mosley, Oswald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Nail and Mr. Lorden.


NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Balrd, Sir John Lawrence
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lloyd, George Butler


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lort-Williams, J.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gillis, William
Lunn, William


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Barnett, Major R. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lynn, R. J.


Barnston, Major Harry
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Grundy, T. W.
Macquisten, F. A.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Mallalieu, F. W.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Mason, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hailwood, Augustine
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash


Cairns, John
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Morrison, Hugh


Cape, Thomas
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Murchison, C. K.


Casey, T. W.
Hayday, Arthur
Myers, Thomas


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Neal, Arthur


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Clough, Robert
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
O'Grady, Captain James


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Colvin, Brig. -General Richard Beale
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Parker, James


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perkins. Walter Frank


Edge, Captain William
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn. W.)
Perring, William George


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jameson, J. Gordon
Purchase, H. G.


Evans, Ernest
Jephcott, A. R.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Fildes, Henry
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N


Ford, Patrick Johnston
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Reid, D. D.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Renwick, George


Forrest, Walter
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Stewart, Gershom
Wheler, Lieut. -Colonel C. H.


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Sturrock, J. Leng
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Taylor, J.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Brldgeton)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.).


Seager, Sir William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Wise, Frederick


Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Younger, Sir George


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)



Sitch, Charles H.
Waring, Major Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Warren, Lleut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Wilson.


Stanton, Charles B.




Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the clock, the Deputy-Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TREATY OF PEACE (HUNGARY) [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and Hungary."—[Mr. G. Harmsworth.]

Mr. HOGGE: Surely my hon. Friend who represents the Foreign Office will give us some account and estimate of the amount of money that this is likely to entail. He was courteous enough to show to us the terms of the Motion, and ask us whether we would be agreeable to it being taken to-night. We are quite agreeable, but we ought to put on record some kind of explanation of what it means. I do not invite him to make a long statement, but I ask him to say something about it before we agree to it.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am very much obliged to the Committee for allowing this question to be raised, and indebted to the courtesy of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) for agreeing to take the Committee stage, if the Committee be agreeable to that being done. We had issued an explanatory memorandum showing for what purpose this money would be re-
quired. A White Paper has been issued, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I read a few words therefrom—
The expenses include the British share of the expenditure of (a) the mixed arbitral tribunal, (b) the International Commission of the Danube, and (c) the British Members of the Boundary Commission, of the Allied Commission of Control, and of the Reparations Commission.
The Paper states that the expenses under (c)—that is the larger number of these bodies set up under the Treaty—are recoverable from the interested States. I am sorry that I cannot give anything like an estimate of the charges which will fall due under this Resolution, but they will be of a very moderate character, and will fall on the Estimate of the Department concerned. At a later stage I might be able to give an approximate estimate as to what the sum will be, but in any case it will be a very modest sum, and the greater part of it is recoverable from the States interested in the work of these Commissions. I shall be grateful to the Committee if they agree to take this Resolution to-night.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,

"That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Swansea Gas Light Company, which was presented on the 17th March [Cmd. 1212], be approved."— [Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — SOUTHERN IRELAND PARLIAMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, in view of what was said this afternoon as to the elections in Ireland, whether any statement is going to be made, and, if so, when?

Colonel L. WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I understand that no statement will be made by the Prime Minister to-night, but a very full discussion will take place when the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland is taken in Supply on Thursday next.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that on the Irish Estimates on Thursday that point could not be discussed, as it would involve fresh legislation; and, in view of that, can he communicate the desire of this House to the Prime Minister, who has not made the statement which was promised, that some other day will be taken for making the statement?

Colonel WILSON: I will certainly communicate the request to the Prime Minister. It may be possible, if the House so desire, to deal with the question on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.